Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Greg B
Recent Activity
-
Greg commented on the article |Mark, I really like your cell phone analogy.
I've also personnaly noticed improvement in environmental health on my farm after switching to RR beans and corn. Going to a no till rotation leaves cover on the fields all winter, protecting them from errosion and supplying habitat for wild-life. This also means we (and not just my farm but everyone around) could put the really tough chemicals. In the last 15 years since we have started using these crops there has been a huge increase in all type of wild life from frog and rabbits to deer and cyotes.
Are GM crops safe? I would confidently say that there is no compelling evidence that they are unsafe, either theoretically or expereimentally. These crops have one extra protien in a soup of tens of thousands of protiens.
-
Greg commented on the article |
I have tried to make my points as clearly as possible.
There are problems with the market in the US. These problems you mention, corruption, etc. are not contained to the agricultural sector. The science behind GM technologies should not be lumped in with these problems. Diamonds can cause wars but you would never blame the geochemical processes that form diamonds for those wars, you blame selfish people and the civilization they are found in.
If you want non-biased research then advocate for more publically funded science.
By assure we keep our small farms I mean that we need to reduce the pressure to go large scale high input farming by promoting the growth of local food (not commodities for the world market).
Doing this with more people and less of an impact on the environment will require extensive breeding and use of all the tools breeders and researcher have available.
I would have appreiciated if you had read my comments more thoughly to try to understand them and ask for clarification when needed. I feel have addressed your responses in a coherent and in a point by point manner. Seeing that you are clearly stedfast in your position and that I have gained nothing new from this conversation I say good-day.
-
Greg commented on the article |
There are some very big problems with the US subsidy system. It absolutely has to be fixed. The point i am trying to make is that these problems originate from the way the market is set up and NOT the science of GM technologies. They often get lumped together as the same problem, they are different issues.
"(To me,) it sounds like you stand to benefit from GM-crops; nothing wrong with that. I just have a lot of reservations about selling-out small farmers." I think we all stand to benefit from GM-crops, what we need to do is figure out how to use them best and assure we keep our small farmers.
For full discloser: I am a grad student being paid by a public grant for biodiversity research. I grew up on a small farm that uses GM crops.
-
Greg commented on the article |
I agree there should be strict MRL, based on publically funded toxilogical studies, on all foods no matter where they came from. There also should be (and is) restrictions of pesticide use with regards to environmental impact of course based on non-biased peer reveiwed scientific research.
I don't understand "My argument on GM food is NOT the argument against GM food."
But,i do also agree that all gm crops should be tested by publically funded researchers. Of course the data should guide government regulations.
So far so good, more money for toxicologists.
Do I think that we will benifit economically? Well, biotech is a massive industry and involves billions of dollars. The fact that overgrown corporations are destroying the lifes of many lower income bracket people (farmers or not) is not an issue contained in the ag sector. The main force that is pushing farmers to large scale high input farming is the fact that they are trying to grow commodities for global market and not food for a local market.
These are problems with the market not with GE technologies. GM crops are safe for consumption and have had a positive impact on the environment (do not confuse the impact of GM crops with the industrial ag context you usually find them in).
If we want to produce safe and reliable food for our growing population with less of an impact on the environment farms are going to have to be a reasonable size, with good management and less inputs. We need to be growing good local food, not global commodities. To accomplish this i believe we will need a massive influx of basic plant bio and plant breeding (GM and "conventional") research. A wide variety of modern crops with pest resistances, environmental stress adaptions, better nutritional content etc. adapted to all the climates we have on this continent (and other) will be needed. This technology needs to get to farmers as fast and as cheaply as possible.
-
Greg commented on the article |
L.S. I see where you are coming from. There is alot of corporate involvement in our food system and there is alot of money to be made. That said, I dont think that that implies that Raj Shah does not care about public food safety. Is there any evidence, maybe of things that he has done in the past, that might support this idea? If there is then he is not the guy for the job. Is there a connection to him and this money? Don't hate just because he is pro-GM.
I think i can answer your question,
"How did we manage to evolve for thousands of years without GM food, and the "agrilectuals" input?"
Simple, we did not farm. It was probably an interesting time too. Then the ice age ended and we domesticated crops. This is when genetic modification of other species started. We are now totally dependent on these GM crops.
I like how you eagerly site web links and "have a hundred more" but you "don't care what any scientific report says". I do agree that we need to keep scietific research as public as possible though.
I fail to see the logic in your arguement with MRLs. If the goverment really did not care about our health then there would be no maximum allowed levels. There are. If you are saying that they to high and pose toxicity risks then they should be refined. No body is making you eat anything. If you want you could grow your own food, but its very hard to turn away from the exedingly cheap, available, safe and diverse food made available to us by modern agriculture.
As for your comment about paraquat yes its tough stuff. Sure is a good thing that now we can control weeds with non-toxic (to us) round-up made possible by GM crops.
Also, I couldnt get the last two links to work.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits