WARNING: Kraft's Chips Ahoy contains GMOs

[3rdworldcasualty]

Bangkok, THAILAND — 7 October 2005 - Greenpeace today warned consumers that the popular cookie product, Chips Ahoy, being sold in Thailand contains genetically modified ingredients. The environment group also called on Kraft (Thailand), which owns Chips Ahoy, to adopt a no-GMO policy and stop importing products with GMOs into the country.

In September, Greenpeace collected samples of Chips Ahoy sold in Bangkok and sent them for testing at GeneScan (Germany), a renowned independent laboratory. Results of the tests found Chips Ahoy positive of GMO genes.



"This is a classic case of double standards. Kraft has a no-GMO policy in Europe, but it sells a product with GMOs in Thailand. Kraft must treat Thai consumers equally as with its European consumers," said Patwajee Srisuwan of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.



Kraft is one of the world's largest food companies popularly known for its cheese, biscuits, confectionaries and dairy products. The company, however, is in the Black List of Greenpeace True Food Shopper's Guide because of a lack of policy to avoid the use GMOs in Thailand.



"Kraft must adopt a no-GMO policy in Thailand to show that it does not treat the Thai people as second class citizens," Patwajee reiterated.



Consumers who would like to avoid GMOs in their food can refer to the Greenpeace True Food Shopper's Guide which is available free of charge at Nai-in bookstores, Se-ed bookstores, B2S and can be downloaded from www.truefood.org. Consumers can also send in requests to PO Box 9, Sanampao Post Office Bangkok 10406 or through the GMO hotline 02-6168170.



Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organization which uses non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and to force the solutions which are essential to a green and peaceful future.

from
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/news/w...-s-chips-ahoy-c (http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/news/warning-kraft-s-chips-ahoy-c)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why does Greenpeace oppose GMOs?

[Bannockburn]

Why wouldn't they is more like it? I would imagine any earth activists would oppose Frankenfoods.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because boycotting foods that contain GMOs made by companies with unethical practices is fine, but opposing "Frankenfoods" is just stupid anti-science paranoia.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:18 PM
Because boycotting foods that contain GMOs made by companies with unethical practices is fine, but opposing "Frankenfoods" is just stupid anti-science paranoia.
Hear, hear! Pseudoscience is not any more justifiable on behalf of leftist causes than it was on behalf of right wing industrialist causes such as drug prohibition or suppressing competitive technologies.

--- G.

[Severian]

Hmm...Kraft is treating Thais as second-class consumers...like Americans?

There's nothing inherently unsafe about genetically modified foods. People have been using medicines made with genetically modified organisms for decades, without anyone ever complaining about it.

[LSD]

The paranoia about genetically modified foods is so depressingly regressive.

Instead of fighting against food, Greenpeace et al., should be fighting against the real abuse of genetic modification: its use to enforce capitalist domination by creating "terminator" genes and patented lifeforms. That's the real danger of this technology, not healthy stronger crops.

GMO foods are not only not "franken-" anything, they are essential if we are going to ever feed all of humanity.

[STI]

Beautifully done all. I was afraid I'd actually have to say something here, but you all covered it nicely.

[Che NJ]

There is nothing wrong with GM foods at the moment, but the introduction of new genes into crops may cause unforeseen mutations that can have negative effects for humans and the environment. Stronger crops also results in the spread of stronger weeds, insects and bacteria so over time, developing a stronger crop may have been pointless sinceyou are fighting negative biotic factors with the same intensity you fought them without GM crops.

The only positive effects of GM crops I can think of are a longer sell-by date and and an unknown period of higher farm productivity.

If I am missing anything please inform me.

[STI]

developing a stronger crop may have been pointless

... Except all the extra food you produce before the weeds and bugs "catch up"

Plus, you can just go and make more GMOs that can stand up to those new super-weeds.

[workersunity]

the problem with GM foods well with plants at least is that is minimalizing diversity, and does cause in the long term serious harm to the environment

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How do GM crops minimize diversity any more than standard crops?

Don't forget that there's more than one solution to the problem of weeds developing resistances. Why not tweak the weeds so that they are edible, or die before harvest time?

[Che NJ]

How do GM crops minimize diversity any more than standard crops?
they minimize diversity because only the strongest, most favorable genes are selected, patented and sold to farmers. Plants with the least diversity have trouble developing resistence to crops, just like the bannana. (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/5a4d4c3ee4d05010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html) The stronger GM crops replace the old fashioned crops since they do not produce as much, but we still don't know for how long.


Don't forget that there's more than one solution to the problem of weeds developing resistances. Why not tweak the weeds so that they are edible, or die before harvest time?
good idea but if somebody came up with a way to do that, the company they work for would be out of buisiness if nobody had to worry about weeds.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Che [email protected] 11 2005, 12:29 PM

Don't forget that there's more than one solution to the problem of weeds developing resistances. Why not tweak the weeds so that they are edible, or die before harvest time?
good idea but if somebody came up with a way to do that, the company they work for would be out of buisiness if nobody had to worry about weeds.
Thus proving my point that the problem is capitalism and not GMOs.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I dont know what site it was it linked from this site. It discussed end of the world theories. One of them is that GMO's would destroy us due to overuse. :lol:

[Che NJ]

Don't forget that there's more than one solution to the problem of weeds developing resistances. Why not tweak the weeds so that they are edible, or die before harvest time?
good idea but if somebody came up with a way to do that, the company they work for would be out of buisiness if nobody had to worry about weeds.

Thus proving my point that the problem is capitalism and not GMOs.
then, I would agree with you there and discourage the use of GMOs by irresponsible capitalists which is the point of this thread. But I'll say again: unnatural genes in unnatural places could have negative effects down the line.

[STI]

So could anything. Are we just going to stick our heads in the sand and not develop any new technology because it "might harm us down the line"?

[Che NJ]

So could anything. Are we just going to stick our heads in the sand and not develop any new technology because it "might harm us down the line"?
People have been eating natural crops for thousands of years, I wouldn't say there is any problem with them. why take the risk with GM crops.

[More Fire for the People]

You know how much I care that GMOs are in my food? Not one bit.
You know what I do care about? When scientist aren't the ones putting them in their.

[Latifa]

Better crops = Rapidly degrading soil

Some areas will become barren if over-farmed with super crops, we need to exercise real care with implementing GE crops.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 07:58 AM
Better crops = Rapidly degrading soil

Some areas will become barren if over-farmed with super crops, we need to exercise real care with implementing GE crops.
Actually it's monoculture = degraded soil. The solution is crop rotation.

For goodness sake people, don't you know anything about how the soil actually works? Tinkering with plant's genes isn't to bring rack and ruin unless it was specifically engineered to do so (Terminator genes)

This "natural" fetish is just ridiculous. Nature is ineffecient.

Another thing, why are organic foods and foods produced using GMOs considered polar opposites? They aren't. With the exception of crops geneered to produce pesticides, they are not mutually exclusive.

[STI]

Originally posted by Che [email protected] 12 2005, 12:52 AM

So could anything. Are we just going to stick our heads in the sand and not develop any new technology because it "might harm us down the line"?
People have been eating natural crops for thousands of years, I wouldn't say there is any problem with them. why take the risk with GM crops.
Because if we don't, we won't have enough food to feed the world, that's why. It's a risk we absolutely have to take. I can't believe you're unable to see any benefit to using GMOs.

[Che NJ]

So could anything. Are we just going to stick our heads in the sand and not develop any new technology because it "might harm us down the line"?

People have been eating natural crops for thousands of years, I wouldn't say there is any problem with them. why take the risk with GM crops.

Because if we don't, we won't have enough food to feed the world, that's why. It's a risk we absolutely have to take. I can't believe you're unable to see any benefit to using GMOs.
We do have enough food, it's just not distributed evenly. To solve hunger problems we only have to take food from overnourished countries and give it to undernourished countries. The hunger epidemic is not caused by any lack of food.

And I'm not sayiing there is absolutely no benefit, I'm just saying GM crops are unnecessary and possibly dangerous.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And what about population growth? Sooner or later population is going to outstrip the food supply as it currently stands.

[LSD]

We do have enough food, it's just not distributed evenly. To solve hunger problems we only have to take food from overnourished countries and give it to undernourished countries.

Because that's so easy?

The point is, GMO foods allow us to do just that. It isn't the physical transportation of crops, but it is the transplantation of first world technology.

The first world has a surplus of food which allows it to build advanced technologies which it can use to increase food levels in the third world. It's not as direct as a helicopter drop, but it's much more efficient.


The hunger epidemic is not caused by any lack of food.

No, it's caused by a lack of technology.

The third world has the soil and the sun and the water. What it lacks is the infastructure, technique and political strength to utilize them.

GM technology allows for a maximization of these resources. It is precisely the remedy required to allow for the underdeveloped world to ...well, develop, without any of the tools that the developed world had, namely time and political independence.

As long as the third world does not have the agricultural infastructure of the first, not to mention control over its own lands, its going to have to use something to maximixe yield. There is currently no effective way of doing this except genetic modification.


And I'm not sayiing there is absolutely no benefit, I'm just saying GM crops are unnecessary and possibly dangerous.

"unnescessary"? Not on your life!

For one thing, GM foods are saving lives right now. As you read this, there are people eating crops that otherwise could not have been grown.

And for another, may I remind you that the present population level is hardly stable. The human race is presently growing at the highest rate in its history. if we have hunger issues today, imagine 60 years from now!

If we don't start working on increasing crop production now, we'll be completely unprepared for the global catastrophe to come.

And insofar as it being "possible dangerous". Again, this assertion is based on absolutely nothing. Why are foods which have had their DNA changed "dangerous"? What makes the act of genetic change -- something, I would remind you, that we've been doing since agriculture began -- harmful in any way?

The fear of GM foods is just the typical anti-science hysteria made so popular by the post-modern crowd. If it's not "natural" it must be "bad".

Sorry, but that's complete and utter crap.

[STI]

We do have enough food, it's just not distributed evenly. To solve hunger problems we only have to take food from overnourished countries and give it to undernourished countries. The hunger epidemic is not caused by any lack of food.

Do you have any idea how we got to that point? Read up on the Green Revolution. GMOs also contribute to this.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Excellent post, LSD! :)

--- G.

[Che NJ]

The first world has a surplus of food which allows it to build advanced technologies which it can use to increase food levels in the third world. It's not as direct as a helicopter drop, but it's much more efficient.
and you expect the first world to just give this technology to the third world? It's much easier for them to sell the third world crops they can't afford than give them their own means of producing food.

For one thing, GM foods are saving lives right now. As you read this, there are people eating crops that otherwise could not have been grown.
yes, they may be saving lives now, but I mentioned before that it is only a matter of time before things like weeds, insects and bacteria become strong enough (through natural selection) to bring down productivity.

And insofar as it being "possible dangerous". Again, this assertion is based on absolutely nothing. Why are foods which have had their DNA changed "dangerous"? What makes the act of genetic change -- something, I would remind you, that we've been doing since agriculture began -- harmful in any way? We have been changing plants by breeding them with the best plants of the same species. Right now, we are using genes from other species of plants and even genes from animals and humans. We have not been doing that since agriculture began.

[LSD]

and you expect the first world to just give this technology to the third world?

No. But do you except it to "just give" the third world food either?

We both know that the nature of capitalism and imperialism means that the first world will do very little help its exploited populations, nonetheless the question of how could it help is still very much relevent.

The issue of the first world's willingness to help, however, is not, since it is just as much a block in your "send food" model as it is with regards to GMOs.


It's much easier for them to sell the third world crops they can't afford than give them their own means of producing food.

No, it most certainly is not!

Sending food is expensive, long, labourious, and constant. One missed shipment and people starve.

Sending crops that are capable of, say, growing in the dessert or on mountaintops, however, allows for the countries in question to feed themselves at much less cost and effort.


yes, they may be saving lives now,

So then shouldn't you support their use "now"?


but I mentioned before that it is only a matter of time before things like weeds, insects and bacteria become strong enough (through natural selection) to bring down productivity.

What kind of an argument is that?

By that logic we shouldn't improve antibiotics, since it will lead to "stronger bacteria".

Sorry, but if stronger pests develop then we'll find ways of dealing with them -- provavly, through genetic modification. But we cannot give up a proven good because of a nebulously theoretical "future" harm.

GM foods save lives, end of discussion.


We have been changing plants by breeding them with the best plants of the same species. Right now, we are using genes

That's right, we've improved our method. It's called progress.


from other species of plants and even genes from animals and humans.

More "frankenfoods" nonesense.

Not a single commerical GM crop out there has "human genes" in it. And even if it did, so what? Genes are genes. This isn't a goddamn movie, the plants aren't going to grow faces and hands.

If mimicking a codon series found in human DNA provides an advantage to a plant, why shouln't we try it? If it means that it will save lives, can we in good concience refuse because it seems "icky"?

This anti-science hysteria is far more dangerous than any GM food. Unlike GMOs, it's actually killed people.


We have not been doing that since agriculture began.

Sure we have, just less effeciently.

What do you think cross-breeding is? It's chaning the DNA.

How does it matter if the changes made are caused by selective pairing or laboratory experiment? Again, this is just more of the "natural = good" fallacy so depressingly common nowadays.

The fact is, if we can learn one thing from history it's that things created by man tend to be safer for us than things created by nature.

The smallpox vaccine, I would remind you, was manmade; smallpox was not.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Again, beat me to it, could not agree more :D

--- G.

[Che NJ]

It's much easier for them to sell the third world crops they can't afford than give them their own means of producing food.
No, it most certainly is not!

Sending food is expensive, long, labourious, and constant. One missed shipment and people starve
How about, they sell them the food grown in their countries that is usually shipped away to first world countries!


What kind of an argument is that?

By that logic we shouldn't improve antibiotics, since it will lead to "stronger bacteria".

Sorry, but if stronger pests develop then we'll find ways of dealing with them -- provavly, through genetic modification. But we cannot give up a proven good because of a nebulously theoretical "future" harm.
This a completely different topic that deserves its own thread but just let me point out that we are on what I think is our 9th-icillin. diseases have become resistant to the first pennicillin a long time ago. We can only come up with so many antibiotics, when all diseases become resistant to it, what will we do then? but like I said, this is completely different we should always be able to grow food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin



We have not been doing that since agriculture began.
Sure we have, just less effeciently.

What do you think cross-breeding is? It's chaning the DNA.

How does it matter if the changes made are caused by selective pairing or laboratory experiment? Again, this is just more of the "natural = good" fallacy so depressingly common nowadays.

The fact is, if we can learn one thing from history it's that things created by man tend to be safer for us than things created by nature.

The smallpox vaccine, I would remind you, was manmade; smallpox was not.
The "safer" debate is just based on what we know. We know that natural crops are safe and are unlikely to change. We don't know how organisms will behave if unnatural genes are put into its gene sequence. they could make people allergic to them or whatever. We just don't know how those genes will change when those crops are crossbred with other crops. The reaction to an unknown gene could cause a mutation that is harmful beneficial or not affect the crop at all the biggest thing is we don't know.


The smallpox vaccine, I would remind you, was manmade; smallpox was not
this is an idiotic arguement, men can make man-made things that harm us too! just look at New Orleans after the Hurricane. If all those buildings with asbestos and cleaning spray and other chemicals weren't there, New Orleans would be alot healthier to live in. But of course New Orleans wouldn't be there.

And of course nature harms us, it harms itself too, organisms kill each other to survive. Smallpox is just doing what it can to survive.

[LSD]

How about, they sell them the food grown in their countries that is usually shipped away to first world countries!

How about they abandon neoliberalism and free the world? Sorry, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

Of course we all agree that the best thing for the third world would be if the first were to leave it the fuck alone. But until that happens, we still need to have practical solutions for present problems. One of these happens to be GM foods.

And, again, current crop techniques are not going to cut in a few short decades. Even if there is enough food right now, and even that point is contentious, we very soon we won't.

We need to maximixe yield or we are facing a global calamity. Plain and simple.


This a completely different topic that deserves its own thread

I can't believe you just actually said that. :angry:

Let me spell this out for you::

THERE IS NO "TOPIC" TO BE DISCUSSED! ANTIBIOTICS ARE NOT A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE!

For Christ's sake, man, tell me you have some logic left. Do you have any idea how many people are alive today because of antibiotics? Pennicilin and its like have saved, wait for it, BILLIONS of lives. There is nothing in the history of medical pharmacology that even compares with the antibiotics.

Are they perfect? Of course not. Can they be overused? Yes. But is their usefulness "deserving its own thread"? Not on your fucking life!


We can only come up with so many antibiotics, when all diseases become resistant to it, what will we do then?

Come up with something better. It's called progress, something that "nature" can never provide us.

Don't you understand, this isn't about perfection. It's not about finding an "ultimate" solution, it's about solving problems today.

The problem with those who don't understand science and glorify "nature" is that they are always looking for supernaturalist results. They want grand answers, great sweeping solutions that adress all their concerns and allow them relax.

It's why primmies hate civilization. It's so damn complex, it's so transformative. It's so much easier to keep with what is safe and simple and consistant. There's something very comforting in stillness, something very appealing about simplicity.

Science is not religion, it is not theology, it doesn't give us the grand answers. It doesn't tell us today how to solve all our problems tomorrow. It allows us to understand, to unwrap just a little bit of the world around us and just a little bit at a time.

That means that our answers, when they come, will be progressive and will be incomplete, but they will be practical.

Unlike those who call for regression and "safe" stagnation, science offers the opportunity of saving lives today.

People are going to die unless we increase creop yields. We have a way of doing this that has no established dangers and many establishes safety features.

Again, how can you in good conscience say no? More importantly, how can you justify it?

Continuing, on the subject of science and your misunderstanding of it, let's clear up one other issue. "All diseases" can never be resistant to antibiotics. If you had any understanding of medicine you'd realize that while resistant strains mutate, the vast majority of bacteria reamain vulnerable.

If we stopped using antibiotics, instead of only this small minority being dangerous, all bacteria would be dangerous. That would mean that an ear infection could kill you.

Antibiotics aren't making bacreria "stronger", they merely mean, through natural seclection, that those bacteria with immunity mutations tend to survive more than those without? But do you realize why that is? It's because the other one are dying. If there were no antibiotics, or if the regressives win and we stop using them, it will not mean that bacteria will "relax" it will just mean that in addition to the mutated ones, all those other bacteria will be killing us as well.

Great plan... :rolleyes:


The "safer" debate is just based on what we know. We know that natural crops are safe and are unlikely to change.

We also "know" that horses are safe and unlikely to change. Why then should we use cars?


We don't know how organisms will behave if unnatural genes are put into its gene sequence. they could make people allergic to them or whatever. We just don't know how those genes will change when those crops are crossbred with other crops. The reaction to an unknown gene could cause a mutation that is harmful beneficial or not affect the crop at all the biggest thing is we don't know.


"don't know", "could", "don't know", "could", "don't know".

Sorry, that's not an argument, it's fear.

What we know is that there are no established detriments. What we know is that it offers us the ability to save lives. What we know is that the best available data tells us that there are no harmful effects.

And what we also know is that these "don't know" arguments are precisely the claims made against electrfication and industralization and democracy.

They are the same arguments made against gay rights and 50 years ago against desegregation.

It is the same argument used against communism.

You're right. We don't "know" absolutely what will certainly happen in the future, we never do. But we don't operate on certainties, we operate on probabilites. We make the best decisions based on the best data, and that data today tells us that GM foods are safe, GM foods are nescessary, and GM foods are our only realistic means of feeding the planet.

We may not absolutely "know" what will happen if we use them, but we sure as fuck know what will happen if we don't (hint: it's spelt S-T-A-R-V-A-T-I-O-N).

[Che NJ]

How about they abandon neoliberalism and free the world? Sorry, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

Of course we all agree that the best thing for the third world would be if the first were to leave it the fuck alone. But until that happens, we still need to have practical solutions for present problems. One of these happens to be GM foods.
I realize the best thing to do would be leave them alone, and my point is they are not going to get the food in their country and they are not going to get GM crops. Please tell me how they will get these crops.


Pennicilin and its like have saved, wait for it, BILLIONS of lives.
I know it has, but it won't forever.

Come up with something better. It's called progress, something that "nature" can never provide us.
there are only so many chemicals we can create that will kill bacteria, there aren't an unlimited number of combinations we can come up with. I realize they only have good results, I was just trying to relate the resistance arguement to another topic.


THERE IS NO "TOPIC" TO BE DISCUSSED! ANTIBIOTICS ARE NOT A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE!

Scientific American thought the topic was of some concern (http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=E5F23461-5B81-4D02-A413-2EA7A6AAC7A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=C906C809-C340-42A0-AF7D-13B606E2C3B&sc=I100322)
I know it's just a preview, I couldn't find the article in any other place on the internet.


We also "know" that horses are safe and unlikely to change. Why then should we use cars?
Cars are even less likely to change than horses, they are not alive :D

As for everything else I've already said what I think about it, I'm not going to continue this quoting war with you.

[LSD]

I realize the best thing to do would be leave them alone, and my point is they are not going to get the food in their country and they are not going to get GM crops.

If that were true, why are we having this discussion?

If the third world can't get food and can't get GM foods, then there's no reason to debate merits at all! Clearly, though, that isn't the case since the third world is utilizing genetically modifed crops right now.


I know it has, but it won't forever.

Yes it will!

Again, that's the point!

Pennicilin will always save lives because it will always kill the vast majority of bacteria. Those that it cannot, and that its analogues cannot, are the "superbugs" that has you so concerned.



Well, fine, those are dangerous, they managed to survive our "first wave" if you will. But the only reason that they are particularly dangerous is that they have mutated a defense against our medicine, not because they're "stronger".

Stopping the use of antibiotics will not make bacteria weaker, it will only make those which are presently effectually harmless harmfull again.


there are only so many chemicals we can create that will kill bacteria, there aren't an unlimited number of combinations we can come up with.

Perhaps, but "chemicals" aren't our only option.

There are numerous technologies left to explore, most of which we have not yet even considered. We may run out of antibiotic possibilities, but we will almost certainly come up with an alternative.

Again, science is never still!


Scientific American thought the topic was of some concern

The topic that SA was discussing was the issue of what to do now, something which, of course, we all agree needs to be covered.

What they were not saying, and what you in your ignorance of medicine were saying, is that antibiotics are in any way not an unmitigated good; perhaps even that we should discontinue the use of antibiotics.

That's the position that is so offensively wrong.


Cars are even less likely to change than horses, they are not alive

Actually cars have changed far more over the past 50 years than horses have over the pas 50,000. Evolution is far slower than innovation.

But I noticed that you evaded my point. Horses are "safe" and are relatively unchanging. About, in fact, as unchanging as natural crops. Accordingly, by your doctrine of "safety", should we not continue to use horses for transportation and dismiss cars as "unknown" dangers?


As for everything else I've already said what I think about it, I'm not going to continue this quoting war with you.

That may be because you have yet to actually make a point.

All that you have done is make an appeal to emotion and several factual errors.

You have not provided a single piece of evidence that shows that GM foods are at all dangerous nor have you refuted the sizable evidence that shows that they, rather obviously, alleviate hunger.

Based on this failure on your part, I must conclude that you concede this issue, since if you had a logical argument, you would have posted it by now.

GM foods are good. QED.

[Che NJ]

I know I said I wouldn't post again but I want to end this and state my point.


If the third world can't get food and can't get GM foods, then there's no reason to debate merits at all! Clearly, though, that isn't the case since the third world is utilizing genetically modifed crops right now.
Links to where, what and who is being saved?


Well, fine, those are dangerous, they managed to survive our "first wave" if you will. But the only reason that they are particularly dangerous is that they have mutated a defense against our medicine, not because they're "stronger".
maybe I shouldn't have said stronger, I meant, developed a chemical that neutralizes anti-biotics. And they can build up as many immunities as you throw at it, just the way your own body carries the resistance to hundreds of cold strains.


There are numerous technologies left to explore, most of which we have not yet even considered. We may run out of antibiotic possibilities, but we will almost certainly come up with an alternative.
Ok, you're right, virotherapy and other newly explored technologies have the potential to replace anti-biotics.

What they were not saying, and what you in your ignorance of medicine were saying, is that antibiotics are in any way not an unmitigated good; perhaps even that we should discontinue the use of antibiotics.
I did not say stop I was just saying that they might be completely useless someday. That could be hundreds or thousands of years from now.


Actually cars have changed far more over the past 50 years than horses have over the pas 50,000. Evolution is far slower than innovation.
I meant if you have a car that it will not change unless you "pimp" it or something along those lines. but yes, innovation does move faster than evolution.



With all side debates aside, my arguement is that GM foods are unnecessary and possibly dangerous.

And I think yours is: they are necessary you fool!

I get it, you won't change my mind, I won't change yours.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

With all side debates aside, my arguement is that GM foods are unnecessary and possibly dangerous.

Rubbish, you've proved nothing of the sort, only a surfeit of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) And yet you have the audacity to demand links off LSD? I suggest you back up your own assertions before you go round questioning others.

[Che NJ]

And yet you have the audacity to demand links off LSD?]
I just wanted to know, geez.

I was under the impression that some parts of the third world didn't want GM crops for superstitious or religious reasons. I remember hearing some story about GM food relief being sent back to where it came from because the government didn't want people to eat it.

EDIT: scientific concerns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2459903.stm) forget the religious thing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As I understand it, the maize supplied was for eating, not planting, and therefore any reluctance on the African governments' part on giving this food to their populations is yet more FUD.

However, if they recieve seeds for planting then they have every right to refuse GM seeds for fear of being placed in the pocket of GM multinational corporations. Thjat is perfectly reasonable.

The problem is that the baseless fear of the environmental/health effects of GM get mixed up with the very genuine problem of corporate monopolisation.

[Vallegrande]

Why is GMO considered the best way of preventing starvation around the world? I can think of other things that can help prevent starvation other than making twinked out plants. I can have a farm of great OG vegetables and fruits, yet I wont care to eat them. Because I will have a larger amount of grubs that I grow than by producing plants. Insects are just as nutritious as plants, and their numbers are larger than any of us organisms on earth. Thats the way I see it rather than always making plants genetically opposed these insects. Let the buggers come, and then eat them.

[LSD]

Why is GMO considered the best way of preventing starvation around the world?

Because it allows for significant crop yield increases, something that no other alternative even approaches.

The world needs more food, and is going to need a lot more food in only a few short decades. We need to start comming up with ways to drastically increase our supply, not to mention the durability, of our crops if we are to prevent a global catastrophe.

With genetic technologies we can grow plants that provide twice as much food in locations that were previously barren.

Who knows, someday we might even be growing corn in the Sahara; bananas in the arctic tundra.

Thanks to progress and technology we are finally taking real control over nature rather than the other way around. GM foods aren't just about the opportunities offered today, and they are extensive, they're about the promise of future bennefits to come.

We need to fight the anti-science crowd now so that we can someday reach that tomorrow.

But, again, the primary issue you need to remember here is that maximixing crop production and strength is key to human survival. We use GM we can all live, we don't, we double our starvation level in less than 60 years.

Choose.


I can think of other things that can help prevent starvation other than making twinked out plants.

"twinked out"?

How about better, tougher, longer-lasting, and healthier?

[Vallegrande]

lol yeah, twinked. Though I support genetic modifications that are naturally occurring, not synthetic.

[LSD]

Though I support genetic modifications that are naturally occurring, not synthetic.

Why?

The "naturally occurring" ones are far less likely to be to our advantage than the designed ones.

[pedro san pedro]

LSD - you should be ashamed! yourposts arenormallybased much more solidly in reality than this :angry:

where are GEcrops being usde to 'save lives'? your entire argument seems to be based upon the idea the GE companies are producing 'super crops' and taking these to the 3rd world to help save people from starvation.

this doesnt seem like the type of behavior that companies such as monsanto (those nice, cheery guys that gaveus agent orange) are renound for.

that it is monsanto that is producing the vast majority of the ge seeds out there says a lot about how this technology is actually being used. monsanto is a chemical company. they have no interest in producing crops that will grow larger and feed the starving masses, they are interested only in sellingmore chemicals. so, a vast chunk of the technology is geared toward producing plants that are resistant to pesticides such as round up - meaningthat farmers can pour more chemicals onto the soil.

monsanto is also aware of the fact that their patents have almost expired and that cheap generic versions of round up are going to be hitting the markets and damaging their profits. so, monsantos GE seeds come with a contract to only buy chemicals from them, and often to pay royalties every year.

as for actually producing higer yeilds - the uk soil and health associations 2001 report on ge crops found that crop yeilds were actually [/B]decreasing due to instablity and over use of chemicals! :o

also, increased chemical use leads to even more unstainable agriculture than conventional farming. this is what people are refering to when they mention soil health. i fail to see how exhausting our soil is going to help meet increasing food demands?


[b]Instead of fighting against food, Greenpeace et al., should be fighting against the real abuse of genetic modification: its use to enforce capitalist domination by creating "terminator" genes and patented lifeforms. That's the real danger of this technology, not healthy stronger crops.

the terminator gene you mentioned does exist, but is no longer used in the real world. the method i described above, where farmers are forced to pay royalties every year is how thelarge companies are managing to screw farmers globally.


Because it allows for significant crop yield increases, something that no other alternative even approaches.

The world needs more food, and is going to need a lot more food in only a few short decades. We need to start comming up with ways to drastically increase our supply, not to mention the durability, of our crops if we are to prevent a global catastrophe.

as has been mentioned, we already have enoughfood to feed the planet on a nutrious diet. the current figure stands at about 1 and a half times what is needed (according to the WHO).

crops that have lower yeilds, increase costs for subsistience farmers and weaken the soil are going to help fight starvation? right ;)

[pedro san pedro]

i think someone also asked which crops have human genes in them?

the GE soy grown in the USA (and other places) contains a combination of soya, bacterial and human DNA, plus some 'other' DNA that has not been made public

[barret]

You guys need to see this site http://members.tripod.com/c_rader0/gemod.htm
None of these have anything to do with growing on mountains or deserts, but do make plants grow faster, larger, and virus resistant.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the terminator gene you mentioned does exist, but is no longer used in the real world. the method i described above, where farmers are forced to pay royalties every year is how thelarge companies are managing to screw farmers globally.

Again, it's a case of the capitalist system being at fault and not GE technology.


as has been mentioned, we already have enoughfood to feed the planet on a nutrious diet. the current figure stands at about 1 and a half times what is needed (according to the WHO).

crops that have lower yeilds, increase costs for subsistience farmers and weaken the soil are going to help fight starvation? right ;)

Do I have to remind you that the world's population is increasing, and we won't always be able to feed everybody using current techniques?

If the capitalists were to charge you for breathing air, does this make breathing air bad?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Proponents say that genetically-engineered crops are not significantly different from those modified by nature or humans in the past, and are as safe or even safer than such methods. There is gene transfer between unicellular eukaryotes and prokaryotes.

There have been no known genetic catastrophes as a result of this. They argue that animal husbandry and crop breeding are also forms of genetic engineering that use artificial selection instead of modern genetic modification techniques. It is politics, they argue, not economics or science, that causes their work to be closely investigated, and for different standards to apply to it than those applied to other forms of agricultural technology.

Proponents also note that Mother Nature has crossed species and genera barriers in the past. An oft-cited example is today's modern red wheat variety, which is the result of two natural crossings made long ago. It is made up of three groups of seven chromosomes.

Each of those three groups came from a different wild wheat grass. First, Mother Nature crossed two of the grasses, creating the durum wheats, which were the commercial grains of the first civilizations up through the Roman Republic. Then Mother Nature crossed that 14-chromosome durum wheat with another wild grass to create what became modern red wheat at the time of the Roman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

--- G. (proponent)

[Commie Rat]

will try to find liek on GM bannans in SE asian in sure it has happend