Genetically modified crops largely a failure, says consumer group

[Jorghnassen]

Non sequiturs. Since when did higher production cost translate into increased palatability, for instance?

Possibly because of better quality ingredients, less filler, whatever? Tell me, when you go to the grocery store, do you always buy the cheapest brand of everything because it must taste just the same as the pricier brands (or do you do double blind testing for everything)?

The evidence for this is?

I posted a link to a government report on it. It turns out our friendly pork producers don't respect the laws and don't use the most environmentally friendly methods available...

That companies exist to make profits is hardly remarkable, although there is a tendency on the part of some to paint this as a rather sinister thing. Nor do I think that any representative of Monsanto has ever claimed any technology of theirs will alleviate world hunger. Oh, and do you think that profit ever enters the mind of organic farmers?

Of course, everybody is out there to make a profit, and it's not necessarily a sinister thing, it depends on what one is willing to do to make a profit.

No, there's a whole regulatory process that has to be adhered to as well, and that doesn't come cheap.

Yeah, research and regulations must be the only costs for pharmaceutical companies...

 

[Jorghnassen]

Eh, you misquoted me and left out my points. They are not deciding to willfully destroy land. There are laws, and in Canada there are consequences.

They are deciding willfully to increase production to sell to foreign markets, and consider the consequences of this increased production to be worth the profit. Of course, when the laws aren't enforced too much, somehow there is a tendency not to respect them...

You put down farmers for "clearing land" and "destroying it" (how odd they can grow crops and animals on this "destroyed land" effectively...so effectively they "beat out" the "small farms"). Seems to me they take care of their land and feed people with the results.

I said destroying ecosystems. Of course the "land" is still there when you clear it, and you can build or put a lot of things on it. Hence the "consequences of these changes are beneficial or not depends on the point of view".

You don't complain about cities destroying land for some reason. Seems to me this land is rather useless for feeding the masses.

I didn't want to get started on an urban sprawl debate. Little anecdote on that, while searching for that government report I stumbled upon some proposals for building those mega-hog farms in urban centers (in the industrial parks obviously), since the pigs don't get to see the light of day anyway, to facilitate waste management and reduce the ecological impact... Anyway, on the feeding the masses part, obviously the local hog producers have no problem supplying the local population if they are willing to expand their operations to participate in foreign markets (which, IIRC, were the US and Japan, which aren't experiencing pork or food shortages of any kind as far as I know).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

They are deciding willfully to increase production to sell to foreign markets, and consider the consequences of this increased production to be worth the profit. Of course, when the laws aren't enforced too much, somehow there is a tendency not to respect them...



I said destroying ecosystems. Of course the "land" is still there when you clear it, and you can build or put a lot of things on it. Hence the "consequences of these changes are beneficial or not depends on the point of view".

[/B]

Proof please. I'm tired today, and need it spelled out.

Thanks much,

Eos

 

[Jorghnassen]

Proof please. I'm tired today, and need it spelled out.

Thanks much,

Eos

Which part? The lack of respect for the laws was already layed out in the Rapport Beauchamp, so that's done. Here's a couple of bits about the increased productions for foreign markets (in particular, the American market):

(this mentions the goal of increasing exports of pork to the US by 50% by 2005 was achieved in 2002)

http://www.unionpaysanne.com/communication-2/nouvelles2/BAPE-Document%20de%20r%E9flexion.doc

(this mentions how much pork is produced in Canada, and that a lot of it is exported to the US and Japan)
http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/ottawa/Dossiers/porc_4222.shtml

(this one mentions that Quebec, unlike the Prairies, doesn't have a lot of room to spread manure)
http://archives.radio-canada.ca/IDC-0-17-1275-7261/politique_economie/pollution_porc/clip8

A little, even-handed editorial on the whole pork industry in Quebec:

http://uqcn.qc.ca/franc-vert/num/v13n01/edi13no1.htm

And something from the pork producers themselves, though it tries to put everything in the best light possible, does recognize that there are pollution and other problems (which of course they are willing to address, but to which extent they do is another question):

http://www.leporcduquebec.qc.ca/pages/Publications/fiches/FBacon.pdf

Finally, a nice little mémoire mentioning deforestation due to pork production:

http://www.ftgq.qc.ca/fr/divers/memoire_industie_porcine.htm

Anything else? I'm sorry I can't find much documentation in English, but I'm lazy and I just use google.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Dude, I don't read French that much, and won't be able to get the finer points.

You made the claims that the farmers care more about profit than the environment. It's therefore up to you to post why you believe that.

So, please translate or find English sources to prove your point.

What is the proof that the land is being irreparably destroyed in the name of profit? I haven't seen any yet.

I simply don't see the damage to the environment or to any ecological habits. Have any animals gone extinct due to this farming?

You made the claim, back it up with more than just link. When I link I just provide it as a source, not just for someone to find the points for me. I provide the points.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Dude, I don't read French that much, and won't be able to get the finer points.

You made the claims that the farmers care more about profit than the environment. It's therefore up to you to post why you believe that.

So, please translate or find English sources to prove your point.

Well, after a semi-lazy search I've found a lot of documents, unfortunately though inevitably in French (because that is the only official language of the province, so government reports, as far as I know, are available only in French, and obviously most organizations concerned about the subjects are similarly Quebec-based and write their documents usually in French only as well). Finding specific studies rather than summary reports is even more difficult.

What is the proof that the land is being irreparably destroyed in the name of profit? I haven't seen any yet.

I simply don't see the damage to the environment or to any ecological habits. Have any animals gone extinct due to this farming?

I don't know the answer to the last question. I'll also add (from my own quick translation of my previous links) that pig-farming is one factor in deforestation ins southern Quebec (along with the previously mentioned urban sprawl and the logging (lumber?) industry), its impact is harder to assess because it is recent (we are talking since 1998 or something like that), but there are concerns because the deforestation is likely to be more permanent than that due to the logging industry (which is cyclical), because the deforested land is basically used to spread manure.

You made the claim, back it up with more than just link. When I link I just provide it as a source, not just for someone to find the points for me. I provide the points.

If I had the time, I'd quote and translate specific parts of the Rapport Beauchamp, if I had then means I'd look up the original studies. We've gone into a long tangent for not much. My original point was that conventional farming isn't all about science, and the food industry is certainly not driven uniquely by science, and one should be critical of the practices of the farming industry, just like any other industry.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Finding specific studies rather than summary reports is even more difficult.

[/B]

I don't know the answer to the last question. I'll also add (from my own quick translation of my previous links) that pig-farming is one factor in deforestation ins southern Quebec (along with the previously mentioned urban sprawl and the logging (lumber?) industry), its impact is harder to assess because it is recent (we are talking since 1998 or something like that), but there are concerns because the deforestation is likely to be more permanent than that due to the logging industry (which is cyclical), because the deforested land is basically used to spread manure.



If I had the time, I'd quote and translate specific parts of the Rapport Beauchamp, if I had then means I'd look up the original studies. We've gone into a long tangent for not much. My original point was that conventional farming isn't all about science, and the food industry is certainly not driven uniquely by science, and one should be critical of the practices of the farming industry, just like any other industry. [/B]

Gee, I always seem to find the time to research my claims and at least try to report back with credible resources that others can read if they want to check out my claims.

I have opinions because of what I've learned in school, documentaries, and elsewhere. I can usually find other sources that others can use that say the same thing that I already learned elsewhere.

You obviously read or learned of this "hazard", and I want to be able to as well...yet you can't provide me with the resources...only excuses. I'd love to learn what you claim you have.

My point is to be critical of "organic" claims about the non-organic farming practices. One of these is that they take care of land and animals better. You claim that farming is hazardous for various reasons as well.

Well, I'm left with what I've presented, and it's a lot more than what you have.

What conclusion am I left with?

Well, as I've already said...there seems to be a lot of animals and plants being reared so that we donot starve. You claim there is a price, and have not provided us with that price. So, some land is used to feed the masses. So what? Land is used to house the masses...so what? Seems to me we and the remaining land are doing fine.

I even gave you a clue as to what kind of prices you could find...maybe animals going extinct...what other prices might there be. If you know so much about it, then why am I fishing for ideas?

Some clue as to why I think we're fine? Well, I've seen things on 20/20 and other sources that say ecology-wise that we are doing fine.

I'm left with the only conclusion possible from the information presented.

1. The organic farmers are full of it.

2. We have more than enough land and forests left over so that ecological niches are still holding their own.

3. Farmers are not blatantly putting profit and greed over land destruction. We need food. They provide it. They need to make more and provide for their families...so some profit is required for their services. We ask of them...they provide it.

Would you rather they went belly up instead of exporting some of their wares?

I'll gladly wait to be informed otherwise if the information can be presented.

Ecologically minded "conventional" farming:

http://www.campsilos.org/mod4/index.shtml
http://www.bcpc.org/reports/docs/Fora/2003ForumReportBiotech2020.pdf

John Stossel:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=448934&page=3

Remember, more than 95 percent of the country is undeveloped.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Gee, I always seem to find the time to research my claims and at least try to report back with credible resources that others can read if they want to check out my claims.

Good for you. I like to debate over the net up to a point when I consider the effort not to be worth it (2 pages of lazy google search with nothing impressive is usually as far as I'll go). I could post a cruel photoshop on the subject but I won't.

I have opinions because of what I've learned in school, documentaries, and elsewhere. I can usually find other sources that others can use that say the same thing that I already learned elsewhere.

I gave you the best sources one can find in a lazy google search, I just don't have the time or the will to translate them. But I put them just to show that I do back up my claims.

You obviously read or learned of this "hazard", and I want to be able to as well...yet you can't provide me with the resources...only excuses. I'd love to learn what you claim you have.

My point is to be critical of "organic" claims about the non-organic farming practices. One of these is that they take care of land and animals better. You claim that farming is hazardous for various reasons as well.

I am critical of "organic" claims, I just might be underestimating how much of a "threat" they might be. In a similar fashion, you seem to think that nothing bad can ever come out of the practice of conventional farming.

Well, as I've already said...there seems to be a lot of animals and plants being reared so that we donot starve.

You see, I think that is one of the main disagreement we have. I don't see how "we" could starve any time soon, so I do not see the point in an increased production if the local market and the foreign markets involved already have plenty of pork. Given that there is already a production of 7 millions of pigs a year* in a province of 7 million people, one can ask: do we really need to eat more bacon and if so is it worth the excess amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous in the waters of wells, underground sources and rivers of certain regions**? As far as I know, no one in the province is currently starving due to shortages of food.

* from this, point 3:
http://www.leporcduquebec.qc.ca/pages/Publications/fiches/FBacon.pdf

** same link as above, point 5.

You claim there is a price, and have not provided us with that price. So, some land is used to feed the masses. So what? Land is used to house the masses...so what? Seems to me we and the remaining land are doing fine.

We obviously disagree on the value of that price. When some land is used no longer to feed but to merely fatten the masses, well...

I even gave you a clue as to what kind of prices you could find...maybe animals going extinct...what other prices might there be. If you know so much about it, then why am I fishing for ideas?

Some clue as to why I think we're fine? Well, I've seen things on 20/20 and other sources that say ecology-wise that we are doing fine.

I'm left with the only conclusion possible from the information presented.

1. The organic farmers are full of it.

2. We have more than enough land and forests left over so that ecological niches are still holding their own.

3. Farmers are not blatantly putting profit and greed over land destruction. We need food. They provide it. They need to make more and provide for their families...so some profit is required for their services. We ask of them...they provide it.

Would you rather they went belly up instead of exporting some of their wares?

I'll gladly wait to be informed otherwise if the information can be presented.

Ecologically minded "conventional" farming:

http://www.campsilos.org/mod4/index.shtml
http://www.bcpc.org/reports/docs/Fora/2003ForumReportBiotech2020.pdf

John Stossel:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=448934&page=3

I'm sorry I can't share your or Randi's admiration for John Stossel, his basic libertarian bias and argumentation are just too obvious. Sure, he can debunk "psychics have helped police investigations" myths easily, but then again being skeptical in certain fields doesn't prevent one from adhering to one's own preconceived notions and ignoring one's own confirmation bias.