Green Revolution, GM, Organic Foods & Biofuels

[MichaelHennigan]

Last July, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner, 93-year old Dr. Norman Borlaug, was honoured with the award of the US Congressional Medal of Honour.

Professor M.S.Swaminathan, President, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences of India, said at the award ceremony: The impact of the Borlaug-led Green Revolution symphony will be clear from the fact that during 1964-68, Indian farmers increased wheat production in four years by an order greater than that achieved during the preceding 4000 years.

The Father of the Green Revolution met with the same level of suspicion, scaremongering and parade of spineless politicians behind the crowd, which can be seen today in respect of GM food.

Recently, an EU Committee deadlocked on approval of 3 genetically modified maize varieties despite favourable scientific assessments from the European Food Safety Authority.

Scientific research to date has uncovered no significant negative health effects from GM foods, despite ongoing public concern that such foods may be harmful, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Irish Government, Professor Patrick Cunningham said last month.

However, conventional wisdom is dangerous when it comes to issues like GM food and climate change remedies. With politicians likely to follow the crowd, it's well to be on guard for what is termed the law of unintended consequences.

The promotion of organic food for example, can even be a danger to the environment and contrary to climate change response objectives.

The blind hope that more biofuel production will be positive, is increasingly seen as dangerous both for the environment and the lives of the poorest in the world.

False Panaceas for Fools on Biofuels and Organic Food

[SPN]

The Father of the Green Revolution met with the same level of suspicion, scaremongering and parade of spineless politicians behind the crowd, which can be seen today in respect of GM food.

Right Wing tosh!

The GMO Companies, and their spin doctors, have continuallly refused to answer straight questions about the problems they have been having with the crops, and instead of puttting their hands up and being honest, they choose instead to name call the people asking the questions, and try and spin against them.

Good strategy in theory, but not on that is likely to be effective in the long run as the public - the people who ultimately buy these products in the Supermarkets - can see straight through the spin.

Scientific research to date has uncovered no significant negative health effects from GM foods, despite ongoing public concern that such foods may be harmful, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Irish Government, Professor Patrick Cunningham said last month.

Because very little, or no, scientific research has been permitted in the areas where we know there may be problems.


We do know from the research performed in the UK that GM crops do not yield better than normal crops, do not have any economic advantage over normal crops, and require higher doses of chemicals than normal crops.

But they do make lots of money for the people who own the patents.

[MichaelHennigan]

The Father of the Green Revolution met with the same level of suspicion, scaremongering and parade of spineless politicians behind the crowd, which can be seen today in respect of GM food.

Right Wing tosh!

The GMO Companies, and their spin doctors, have continuallly refused to answer straight questions about the problems they have been having with the crops, and instead of puttting their hands up and being honest, they choose instead to name call the people asking the questions, and try and spin against them.

Good strategy in theory, but not on that is likely to be effective in the long run as the public - the people who ultimately buy these products in the Supermarkets - can see straight through the spin.

Scientific research to date has uncovered no significant negative health effects from GM foods, despite ongoing public concern that such foods may be harmful, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Irish Government, Professor Patrick Cunningham said last month.

Because very little, or no, scientific research has been permitted in the areas where we know there may be problems.

We do know from the research performed in the UK that GM crops do not yield better than normal crops, do not have any economic advantage over normal crops, and require higher doses of chemicals than normal crops.

But they do make lots of money for the people who own the patents.

Ring wing tosh meets left wing ignorance.

Forty years ago, people like you feared that the new wheat and rice grains of the Green Revolution would result in sterility and impotence.

The Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government says that three key sources of scientific research results in relation to GM foods are the Royal Society (UK), the Academie des Sciences (France) and the National Research Council (USA). All of these have concluded that GM foods are safe.

Some science is of course inconvenient as are the facts about current biofuel production.

[saratoga]

Because very little, or no, scientific research has been permitted in the areas where we know there may be problems.

But if very little or no scientific research has been permitted, how do 'we' know there are problems?

We do know from the research performed in the UK that GM crops do not yield better than normal crops, do not have any economic advantage over normal crops, and require higher doses of chemicals than normal crops.

But you just said that very little or no scientific research has been permitted. So how do you know any of this?

But they do make lots of money for the people who own the patents.

But you just said they don't have any economic advantage. How does someone make money out of patenting something that offers the world no economic advantage?

[Pidge]

The Father of the Green Revolution met with the same level of suspicion, scaremongering and parade of spineless politicians behind the crowd, which can be seen today in respect of GM food.

While I'm unconvinced either way about the safety of GM crops, that's a really poor argument.
Premise 1: Previous agricultural changes met with suspicion.
Premise 2: Previous suspicion was wrong.
Premise 3: Current (different) agricultural changes meet with suspicion.
Conclusion: Current suspicion is wrong.

It doesn't make much sense.

Scientific research to date has uncovered no significant negative health effects from GM foods, despite ongoing public concern that such foods may be harmful, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Irish Government, Professor Patrick Cunningham said last month.

I'm open to correction on this, but hasn't such testing been limited by the prohibition of GM crops in many countries?

The blind hope that more biofuel production will be positive, is increasingly seen as dangerous both for the environment and the lives of the poorest in the world.

False Panaceas for Fools on Biofuels and Organic Food

You're quite right about biofuels, and I don't know many environmentalists who seem them as a huge cure to the climate problem. As for organic food, Borlaug's reasoning seems flawed. He contends (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that more intensive farming is better for the environment since it takes up less land and leaves more space for rainforest. This might have merit if land for organic food production was eating up forest land across the world. It remains a niche product, and it's impact on forest land is minimal.

[Pidge]

Because very little, or no, scientific research has been permitted in the areas where we know there may be problems.

But if very little or no scientific research has been permitted, how do 'we' know there are problems?

He's not arguing that there are - he's arguing on the basis of the precautionary principle.

We do know from the research performed in the UK that GM crops do not yield better than normal crops, do not have any economic advantage over normal crops, and require higher doses of chemicals than normal crops.

But you just said that very little or no scientific research has been permitted. So how do you know any of this?

My understanding is that research into GM crop yields was done in the UK. I'm just going on SPN's word on this, so I wouldn't mind seeing a link.

But they do make lots of money for the people who own the patents.

But you just said they don't have any economic advantage. How does someone make money out of patenting something that offers the world no economic advantage?

This is somewhat easier to answer. Let's say that I'm a builder, and I offer to build you a wind turbine on your roof, claiming that it will make you energy self-sufficient. So, I build it for you, and remove you from the national grid. Then, it doesn't perform quite as well as I told you. Still, you need to keep the blades turning, so that you get some energy. You then realise that the turbine requires a special kind of lubricant, and that I own the patent to the lubricant. Thus, the turbine doesn't offer you a signifigant economic advantage, and I make money from a patent.

[Guinnesslad]

Calling GM Foods part of the 'solution' is disgusting.
And the idea that the organic food market is contributing a dangerous amount to global warming makes me laugh. Beef production accounts for around 20% of GW.

[Pidge]

Calling GM Foods part of the 'solution' is disgusting.

Why?

And the idea that the organic food market is contributing a dangerous amount to global warming makes me laugh. Beef production accounts for around 20% of GW.

Can't beef be organic too?

[Guinnesslad]

Calling GM Foods part of the 'solution' is disgusting.

Why?

And the idea that the organic food market is contributing a dangerous amount to global warming makes me laugh. Beef production accounts for around 20% of GW.

Can't beef be organic too?

Why? Because the whole 'green movement' has to do with saving the planet, and by doing so, saving ourselves. GM foods are unnatural and could have countless, still to be seen, side affects.

Beef can certainly be organic, but seeing as how the vast majority is risen for fast food chains and cheap mass produced low quality food sources, I really doubt it is.

[Pidge]

Calling GM Foods part of the 'solution' is disgusting.

Why?

Why? Because the whole 'green movement' has to do with saving the planet, and by doing so, saving ourselves. GM foods are unnatural and could have countless, still to be seen, side affects.

So are computers. So is modern medicine. Lots of things are "unnatural" and have potential unknown side affects, yet we don't ban them. You'll have to explain what's wrong with something being unnatural.

And the idea that the organic food market is contributing a dangerous amount to global warming makes me laugh. Beef production accounts for around 20% of GW.

Can't beef be organic too?

Beef can certainly be organic, but seeing as how the vast majority is risen for fast food chains and cheap mass produced low quality food sources, I really doubt it is.

You really doubt that what is? My point was that there's very little connection between the two sentences in the original quote.