 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Genetically Modified Plants and World Hunger |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
neotransotaku Sledge Brother Liberated from school...until MLK day                     Since: 11-17-05 From: In Hearst Field Annex... Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Do you guys think that genetically modified plants will solve the world's hunger problems? By genetically modified, I mean through direct manipulation of the DNA and the genes versus alternative methods of doing genetically modification of radiation.
I'm leaning towards no because I feel the world produces enough, but politics get in the way of getting food to where it is needed |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| No, because that assumes that all the world will have the infrastructure necessary for distribution as well as political stability. The current varieties of produce we have right now could solve world hunger, without tampering. However, that doesn't change the amazing incompetence of the international committee to address the more pressing issues in stabilization and elimination of hunger. | |||
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6337 days Last view: 6337 days |
| ||
| Alright, here's the interesting thing: The world already makes enough food to feed the starving. The kicker is that huge farming corporations and governments often buy up excess food and destroy it to keep prices high enough for profit. | |||
Tommathy Since: 11-17-05 From: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~ Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Since interdependence cannot be assured for the reasons above stated, then it is necessary that all localities be able to produce their own food and *not* have to depend on the distribution methods of more, ah, ideally situated nations.
Thus, genetic engineering/breeding of food plants for more environements is certainly one of the steps to helping combat world hunger. Well, that and dropping by The Hunger Site every day. |
|||
Doppelganger 8DS  Since: 11-17-05 From: 65 00 20 00 65 00 1F 00 65 00 2F 00 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Wurl O_o How come I haven't heard any of this? Is it proven, or another one of those conspiracy theories? Anyway, I can't see that genetically altered plants can help world hunger. Most of the farmland is already taken up and the world does produce enough, but unless these altered plants were grown in like labs for 1/10th the time it takes to grow it normally, i'd say no. |
|||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| most of the worlds land that is suitable for farming is already being used.... however not as efficiently as it could be.
certain crops that are grown don't actually provide food for people (coffee, cotton... probably a few others) so there is even more food that -could- be grown.... |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by DeiOriginally posted by Wurl Great Depression? They ruined grain after the Canadian export flooded the world market which drove prices down to miniscule numbers. All to bring prices up. But I've not heard about this sort of activity happening relatively recently. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I know there are government programs that farmers not to grow food, but I've never heard of them having them to destroy already produced food. | |||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6337 days Last view: 6337 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination The "beef" of my argument is true, though the intentions behind those actions are up for debate. It is standard practice for either the government, large farm corporation or grain storage company to destroy food so that prices keep up with the rest of the market. Where conspiracies come to play is that: a.) Most governments support this fully to a great extent and b.) That a few multi-national corporations (5, I think) control 90%+ of the World food market. They destroy and alter food. Another thing to consider is that these corporations already have mostly altered food products. We have seen a media blitzkrieg supporting genetic foods, often using world hunger as the reason and the fact that modified foods are the most tested product in history. However, the pro-genetic altered food propoganda neglects the fact that majority of testing was to see if the specific genetic combonations would work, not if it was safe for consumption. Recently, Monsato (A huge MNC, that made Agent Orange) had a hormone additive that allows cows to produce more milk. This is insane in the first place because there is a world wide excess of milk. However, the hormone was still put on the market without adequate health testing. The additive caused horrible suffering for the cattle. A side effect of the hormone was an illness that could cause the cow to pass on puss and birth fluids into the milk, making it highly dangerous to consume. Even worse, some studies linked the hormone additive passing into milk, possibly causing cancer. Two local Fox News station reporters investigated the story of Monsanto's hormone additive. However, both Fox and Monsanto tried to "lessen the blow" by straight out falsifying the news report and bribing the journalists to do so. In what should have been a landmark case, the reporters sued Fox News and Monsanto for attempts to falsify news that relates to human harm. At first the reporters won on the grounds that falsifying news was illegal. However, an appeal proved it to be legal to do so. It also dis-credited the story under Food Disparagement laws, which makes it illegal to question the safety of staple food products. These laws are absurd and unjust. |
|||
Skydude Armos Knight  Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| Basically, it comes out to farm subsidies, farmers being paid not to grow crops to keep food prices up...helps the farmers, but not so good for everyone else. Infrastructure is something of a problem as well...it's rather difficult to get corn from Iowa to Ethiopia. | |||
|
Doppelganger 8DS Since: 11-17-05 From: 65 00 20 00 65 00 1F 00 65 00 2F 00 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Wurl What in the hell? Why do people do things like this when it so morally wrong? That's abyssmally retarded beyond the normal greed level, if they still go ahead and do this. I still don't get why people supposedly tell farmers not to grow crops just to drive prices up. This kind of thing makes my head spin. |
|||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6337 days Last view: 6337 days |
| ||
| Yup, that's capitalism for you. | |||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| Well, one thing about that Wurl is that I'm pretty sure you injected some of your own views into the events and transformed them into a bit more insidious than they actually were in order to make a point. While what happened sucked, there's a good chance that there wasn't bribery and the like involved and that in fact there was some bad sensationalist reporting due in part to personal desires for fame...as for bribery, I'm wondering if you have documentation or if that's just speculation. I'm not saying you're wrong, because I'm not familiar with the case enough to say so, but that's a pretty strong statement if you don't have some evidence. | |||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6337 days Last view: 6337 days |
| ||
| No, both reporters were bribed. They were clever enough to ask for checks, but then declined later which gave them highly incriminating evidence. | |||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| I think it's rather important to cite sources on a claim as large as the one you're making. I attempted some research (For one, you missed a letter, it's Monsanto) and the only thing I could find on this story was on an extremely biased blog. Which isn't to say that it's necessarily false, since those can definitely do some good independent reporting, but it is to say that it's something of an iffy source on its own. I'd like to learn more about this. | |||
|
Wurl Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6337 days Last view: 6337 days |
| ||
| I could've swore that I typed Monsanto.
I stole this from Wikipedia: In 1997, Fox News reportedly bowed to pressure from Monsanto to suppress an investigative report on the health risks associated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, Posilac. Posilac, a synthetic drug used to increase milk production in cows, is banned in most first-world countries, with the exception of the United States, where it can be found in much of the milk supply. Fox pressured its reporters, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, to alter their report, despite evidence that Monsanto had lied about the risks of contaminated milk and infected cattle. The reporters refused to comply, and were eventually fired. Wilson and Akre then sued Fox News in Florida state court, claiming they could not be fired for refusing to do something that they believed to be illegal. In 2000, a Florida jury found in favor of the reporters, however this decision was overturned in 2003 by an appeals court, on a technicality in the interpretation of the whistleblower's statute under which the original case had been filed. The reporters' struggle with Fox News is ongoing. The findings in their original report were never directly challenged. [4] I believe the anti-Food Disparagement groups have more in-depth links, essays, ect. |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| Check your sources for bias. I went to that Wikipedia article, and looked at the link they reference (you produced it there, though without the link, it's the "[4]" at the end there). It's a website run by the self-proclaimed best friend of the reporters, hardly an unbiased source.
Also, you were mistaken in saying it was recent; the case is apparently ongoing (they can take a while) but the report was in 1997. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that with the sources cited and the others I've found looking at this, we're hardly seeing the unbiased scandal. Especially since you seem to gloss over the FDA's role in all of this, which is without a doubt the most crucial. |
|||
Rom Manic Since: 12-18-05 From: Detroit, WHAT?! Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I think genetically modified plants are unhealthy. Most real food I eat comes from my garden in my front yard, like Tomatoes and Cucumbers and onions and radishes and stuff like that, mostly vegetables.
There really is no reason to genetically modify plants. They're perfect the way they are. They might not grow fast enough, but having enough to go around is what we folks around here call "Using your brain"  |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Short answer: Yes, in fact it will.
Long answer: Well, there is one guy in particular that believed that it will. Norman Borlaug, if you've ever heard of him. He altered plants to grow in different places and give more yield. That's all it will take too. You don't need to super alter them, just make it so more will grow and they'll grow in a different place. Then every country could have their own farms and there would be no need for an infrastructure like Ziff brings up. If it could happen and if it will happen are different though. Companies might not like it happening, since it will drastically lower the cost of food. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Yeah, but you guys have to take into account that the hunger problem isn't just because food is difficult to grow, it's hard to distribute. You can't just airdrop seeds onto a field and expect people to know what to do. They'll need equipment and training. Infrastructure within these areas is VERY important so as to provide education and allow for distribution of surplus foods...as well as protect the farmers from potential hazards.
If all it took was to give someone some wheat with a chunk of dog DNA in it to fix all of Africa's hunger we'd have done it by now. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Genetically Modified Plants and World Hunger |
| |
