Somebody told me they didnt see what the fuss was about a GMO's

[Terra]

"Feeding the world" if that was the primary reason for GMOs then we would have scientists putting amazing root systems on plants so they could be grown in deserts , but no as we all know its to enable the plant to take more chemical . And who wants to eat chemical , i would start with that one mischief .

[Pakanohida]

Mischief, I got the same problem with a friend. He knows Monsanto and Roundup are evil, he will meet me that far. But he feels GMOs really help the world and I keep slamming him with evidence to the contrary, but he keeps finding little loop holes to discuss with me about.

[Ludi]

Not sure how the friend can think GMOs help the world when they don't increase yields or have any other beneficial effect (except to Monsanto stockholders).

'"A hard-nosed assessment of this expensive technology's achievements to date gives little confidence that it will play a major role in helping the world feed itself in the forseeable future," said the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...t4KPsuzYyxMd6Q

[Unmutual]

I firmly believe that monsanto's days are numbered(that or they're going to step it up a notch and kill us all). In Louisiana we are starting to see chemical(read: glyphosate) resistant weeds, apparently this has been a problem for a little over a decade. This was primarily caused by the introduction of glyphosate resistant GMO crops. http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/gwc/gwc-1.pdf will give you some information about this "problem". This reminds me of my favorite gardening quote:

If we throw mother nature out the window, she comes back in the door with a pitchfork.
-Masanobu Fukuoka

[permasculptor]

Show him this.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...GMOEMPEROR.pdf

[Pakanohida]

Show him this.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...GMOEMPEROR.pdf

Thank you, that was painful to read.

[mischief]

Thank you,I have managed to figure out how to paste these onto an email draft, just sent it to myself to make sure the links were useable and they are.

I dont mind people playing devils advocate, in some ways this is vital, we can become blinded by our own opinions and misunderstandings and it is important to have a willingness to accept and consider the knowledge, wisdom and opinions of others.
I would hate to see someone not comment is case they get shot down.

All this has made me really think about why I dont like the idea of gmo's.
I felt this way when I first heard about it, which means I didnt like something based purely on my opinions and gut feelings rather than any proof that it is going to cause problems.
My original reason was that I felt scientist were to quick off the mark to promote a product without fully understanding how things work-DDT etc, Thalidamide....,there is historical evidence that they promote ideas and products that are later found to be either incomplete, hrmful or fallacies throughout our known history.
I could not see how they could even consider use gmo's outside the labs, when how DNA works was so not really understood.
Messing with things we dont fully understand has been a continual justification when bad results occur...."oh but I didnt know..."

So now we have a legacy of yet another science blunder well in the making.
I hope I can get though but I know I am up against a deep respect for modern technology.

[mischief]

Schnapps???? peach?????(lips smacking...)
Maybe we should ramble some more, ramble is good.
Brevity leaves a feeling of incompletedness.

[eco4560]

Thanks Permasculptor - that's a very good summary of it. Scary indeed...

[ecodharmamark]

G'day mischief

um... back to how to I explain to this moron so he doesnt start promoting gmo's? ... now whats an adequate way to explain to somebody why gmo's are not the fairytale ending for world hunger etc...?

Sorry for derailing the discussion, however, the discourse surrounding GMO and anthropogenic climate change do share some common traits: lots of misinformation bandied about as 'scientific fact', leading to lots of misinformed people (see: the rather brief conversation I participated in above). Of course, this brings us to the very important point about when is 'scientific fact', indeed, a fact (or not a fact, for that matter)? The answer is simple, of course: when it is promoted by an entity that has a vested interest. It's at times like this when I am reminded of an old saying often quoted by my mentor: 'data is not information; information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom'.

Regarding your response to your friend: I am not a plant biologist/geneticist, therefore I have not read too widely from the literature on the subject of GMO, and thus I can't help you with a succinct response. However, if you really wish to help your friend, perhaps you could study the 'facts', as put out by the various vested interests, come to your own conclusion, and put that forward. Or better still, do what I do: point the inquirer in the general direction of what you believe to be the 'facts', and have them draw their own conclusion.

Some vested interests on the subject of GMO:

CSIRO - (neutral?)

Greenpeace (against?)

Monsanto (for?)

As I say to my students: 'Is not (applied) science fun?'

Cheerio, Markos