|
I really don't think you can make any assumptions about how anything will go in India based on a program in Tanzania.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 00:17 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:42 |
|
Yiggy posted:I really don't think you can make any assumptions about how anything will go in India based on a program in Tanzania. Like you said, a similar project is underway in Chandigarh. One city in northern India is a small test-base, but it's certainly not a sign that such an initiative would be an obvious failure. As to whether or not a program to provide supplements to rural Tanzania is a good comparison, I don't think it's necessary to list all the ways Tanzania and India are different when their major similarities are that both are developing countries with relatively poor education and literacy rates, high government corruption, and decentralized populations. The scale is obviously much different, but the idea is certainly worth evaluating.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 00:22 |
|
Well first off I think you're leaning pretty heavily on a study I mentioned offhand but didn't link (and thats my fault, certainly not pointing fingers here) just to say "Maybe it could work" so lets dig a little deeper, because now that I'm looking at it more closely I didn't really report all of the details correctly (again, all my fault). So first, here is a link to the study concerning Chandigarh. Looking at it more closely, this was not assessing the efficacy of coverage of the administration of supplementation but rather looking at an area where two rounds of supplementation were given, and then seeing if this lowered the incidence of diarrhea in children. I'm only able to read the abstract so I have no idea what the actual program was like, if its ongoing, if it was ultimately efficacious or not. I kept digging and found this, which is more recent and speaks directly to the issue. quote:Results: Only 25% of the children in India received vitamin A supplementation, indicating a poor coverage, and the differences between the States were wide (<10% to >45%). Rural children (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.10-1.30; P < 0.0001) and children of educated mothers (OR: 2.40; 95% CI: 2.04-2.83; P < 0.0001) were more likely to receive vitamin A supplementation than others. Children born in a higher birth order (6+) (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.46-0.63; P < 0.0001) and those residing in states with low levels of social and economic development (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.46-0.57; P < 0.0001) were only about half as likely to receive vitamin A supplementation as their counterparts. Conclusion: The national vitamin A supplementation program in India did not reach a majority of preschool children in 2005. Greater maternal formal education, higher household wealth status and high social development status of their State of residence appears to be an important determinant for receipt of a vitamin A supplementation by preschool children in India. So it would appear that supplementation efforts are proving to be problematic with huge disparities in coverage in India. The differences in scale, governance and the dynamics of massive Indian cities all cast serious doubt on supplementation as any sort of panacea to vitamin a deficiency in India. Getting the vitamin A into the food supply is going to be way easier than trying to deal with any sort of administrative program in India. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jul 9, 2014 |
# ? Jul 9, 2014 00:37 |
|
Yiggy posted:Well first off I think you're leaning pretty heavily on a study I mentioned offhand but didn't link (and thats my fault, certainly not pointing fingers here) just to say "Maybe it could work" so lets dig a little deeper, because now that I'm looking at it more closely I didn't really report all of the details correctly (again, all my fault). Hm, that's disheartening. I found a similar study published in 2013. The core problem is the sheer craziness of the logistical network needed to create a supplement program on that scale. Maybe it could work in major cities as a way to cut down on deficiency. Anyway, a combined approach utilizing golden rice is obviously the way to go.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 00:45 |
|
illrepute posted:I agree, it would be idiotic and evil to cut off options in the face of a huge crisis like the ones facing the developing world, which is why I think that golden rice should be offered and advertised as a solution- but if Indian farmers don't want to grow it? It should absolutely be acceptable to work with anti-GMO people to provide supplements if they are truly interested in helping the people in the developing world (which many people actually are, even if we think they are misinformed). Why would it be acceptable to work with people who are blocking the easier way to solve the problem? And what do you mean by anti-GMO people providing supplements? Are you under the impression anti-GMO activists are in a position to deliver supplements? You have absolutely no idea how much of a logistical and culture difficulty it would be to get people to take supplements.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 00:54 |
|
illrepute posted:Maybe it could work in major cities as a way to cut down on deficiency. From what I could tell the cities are actually the problem. At first this seemed a little counterintuitive to me but the more I lingered on it, it makes sense. The rural villages and areas are numerous but tiny, and its much less of an issue to get in, supplement everyone, document adequate records and move on to the next. The cities though are such a huge, sprawling mess, teeming with tarp slums and massive, multigenerational low caste homes that keeping track of things there is a much more daunting task. Those are the areas you really want the golden rice, in all of the outlying paddies surrounding and supplying cities like Kolkata and Mumbai. There are so many poor Indians there eating rice and only rice, for whom upper caste Indians in civil services and administration aren't going to give a poo poo about, I think golden rice would be the way to go (and would be worth the effort of convincing those cultivators). For rural areas with more isolated economies, supplementation might be easier than convincing them to change a crop.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 00:59 |
|
Obdicut posted:Why would it be acceptable to work with people who are blocking the easier way to solve the problem? And what do you mean by anti-GMO people providing supplements? Are you under the impression anti-GMO activists are in a position to deliver supplements? More importantly, would anti-GMO activists even care? It's a mess they've created, but tell them they need to help fix it, and they'll probably insist they're really only interested in saving the whales.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 01:41 |
|
illrepute posted:I agree, it would be idiotic and evil to cut off options in the face of a huge crisis like the ones facing the developing world, which is why I think that golden rice should be offered and advertised as a solution- but if Indian farmers don't want to grow it? It should absolutely be acceptable to work with anti-GMO people to provide supplements if they are truly interested in helping the people in the developing world (which many people actually are, even if we think they are misinformed). Attitudes can be changed, but alternatives exist right now that are worth pursuing, ones that face different (possibly lesser) logistical hurdles, as the successful supplement programs in Tanzania suggest. Even if anti-GMO people were giving out vitamins it's clearly not solving the problem. Golden rice is a product invented to solve a problem - if you can solve that problem in other ways there will be no market for golden rice. Even if you think the solution to a problem is bad you have to recognize that any solution is better than none. Western envrionmentalists spreading mis-information about golden rice in Asia is eerily similar to the Vatican spreading mis-information about condoms in Africa. edit: 1) Ideological agenda 2) Make up bullshit 3) Death
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 02:06 |
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why aren't you calling for public GMO research? meat sweats posted:The only thing to debate and discuss is how to destroy anti-food-tech people. Obdicut posted:You have absolutely no idea how much of a logistical and culture difficulty it would be to get people to take supplements. Turns out its doable, and cheap, and immediate. Claiming "culture difficulty" difficulty is coming from a pretty ... uncharitable point of view. (Those savages right?) http://www.micronutrient.org/english/view.asp?x=706 quote:In Afghanistan, children receive vitamin A supplementation along with the vaccination against polio as part of national immunization days. The volunteers who deliver the vitamin A and vaccine, trained by WHO and UNICEF, are reaching up to 95 per cent of Afghan children. Most children will receive their vitamin A dose from volunteers who go door-to-door to deliver these life-saving interventions. Families welcome the volunteers into their communities and their homes. quote:One high-strength vitamin A capsule every six months can help protect a child from the death and disease associated with vitamin A deficiency. These capsules cost approximately two cents each and can often be delivered through existing child health programs. The UN has had information on ways to help for a while. (Decades. This has been worked on for a long time.) No one here cares. They have an agenda. GM monocultures are the only acceptable answer. http://www.unsystem.org/scn/archives/npp02/ch16.htm quote:UNITED NATIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE ON COORDINATION - SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION Push your hobby horse if you like, but denouncing things that work, right now, along with the people that are teaching about them, makes you monsters, baby-blinders, murderers, and all the other epithets you like to use to push your political agenda. If people back away from their PR agenda, then suddenly there are things to examine beyond MONOCROP GOOD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Punjab_case quote:Punjab case quote:But is a reprise of the green revolution—with the traditional package of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation, supercharged by genetically engineered seeds—really the answer to the world's food crisis? Last year a massive study called the "International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development" concluded that the immense production increases brought about by science and technology in the past 30 years have failed to improve food access for many of the world's poor. The six-year study, initiated by the World Bank and the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization and involving some 400 agricultural experts from around the globe, called for a paradigm shift in agriculture toward more sustainable and ecologically friendly practices that would benefit the world's 900 million small farmers, not just agribusiness. There are too many fetishists in this thread. Seek solutions instead of satisfaction.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 03:25 |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Assessment_of_Agricultural_Knowledge,_Science_and_Technology_for_Development#Final_report http://www.greenfacts.org/en/agriculture-iaastd/ http://www.unep.org/dewa/agassessment/index8138.html http://time.hasco.me/iaastd-reports/ quote:Historically, agricultural development was geared towards increasing productivity and exploiting natural resources, but ignored complex interactions between agricultural activities, local ecosystems, and society. quote:The possibility of patenting genetic modifications can attract investment in agricultural research. But it also tends to concentrate ownership of resources, drive up costs, inhibit independent research, and undermine local farming practices such as seed-saving that are especially important in developing countries. It could also mean new liabilities, for example if a genetically modified plant spreads to nearby farms. quote:Many effective innovations are generated locally, based on the knowledge and expertise of indigenous and local communities rather than on formal scientific research. Traditional farmers embody ways of life beneficial to the conservation of biodiversity and to sustainable rural development. quote:Human health can be improved through efforts to diversify diets and enhance their nutritional value, through advances in technologies for processing, preserving and distributing food, and through better health policies and systems. quote:The report’s main assertion is that “business as usual is not an option.”It states that the industrialization of agriculture (i.e. paradigm based on the use of chemical inputs and fossil energy, and on a narrow genetic diversity), as well as lack of training and research into sustainable agricultural methods, have led to the overuse of natural resources, large-scale soil degradation, contribution to climate change, loss of critical biodiversity, inequity, malnourishment and rural-to-urban migration (among a long list of issues that need immediate action). quote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7347239.stm
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 03:26 |
|
It took me a bit to form a calm response to that outpouring of filth. No one here is advocating the abandonment of supplements. It's clear that they are not currently solving the problem as millions are still dying every year and hundreds of thousands are going blind. By integrating golden rice into local food production, another avenue opens to prevent childhood death and blindness due to vitamin A deficiency. There is no reason not to do this beyond the howling of activists drunk on pseudoscience and paranoia trying to push an an agenda that will never cause them any of the suffering it causes millions of others. Regarding your other solutions, the creation of home gardens and "diversification of diets", you sound like any other idiot without a clue about how hard that can be in some parts of the world. Explain to a blind child (here's a free picture of one) how if they just set up a sustainable local garden here or maybe here they wouldn't be having so much trouble. Or maybe tell them that preventing them access to vitamin A fortified rice was an important victory in the battle towards protecting the world's food supply from evil corporate GM plants. edit: Gosh, they could just go to the local farmer's market, too, if they really wanted a healthy, organic, and diverse diet! Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Jul 9, 2014 |
# ? Jul 9, 2014 03:45 |
|
FRINGE posted:There are too many fetishists in this thread. Seek solutions instead of satisfaction.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 03:50 |
|
FRINGE posted:There are too many fetishists in this thread. Seek solutions instead of satisfaction. quote:Golden Rice has the potential to complement existing efforts that seek to reduce blindness and other VAD induced diseases. Those efforts include industrial fortification of basic foodstuffs with vitamin A, distribution of vitamin supplements, and increasing consumption of other foods rich in vitamin A. Those programs are successful mainly in urban areas but still around 45% of children around the world are not reached by supplementation programs. Moreover, these programs are not economically sustainable. Small countries, like Nepal or Ghana, require about 2 million dollars every year to run the campaigns, in spite of the negligible cost of the vitamin A capsules. A large country like India cannot afford to run country-wide programs, because the costs become prohibitive. There is no guarantee that donors and governments will be able to carry on funding those programs year after year (UNICEF, Micronutrient Initiative). Biofortified crops, like Golden Rice offer a long-term sustainable solution, because they do not require recurrent and complicated logistic arrangements once they have been deployed. That's actually a very peculiar argument, because Ghana's GDP in 2012, for example, was $83.74 billion (Index Mundi), with 5.2% of that being health expenditures (WHO). Makes me wonder why they even need a philanthropist to do a $2 million job. Have to say, I am quite confused. Do or don't the logistics work out?
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:00 |
|
FRINGE you are doing more infodump-and-run posts than eripsa did in his marble economy thread.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:09 |
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:No one here is advocating the abandonment of supplements. It's clear that they are not currently solving the problem as millions are still dying every year and hundreds of thousands are going blind. quote:Regarding your other solutions, the creation of home gardens and "diversification of diets", you sound like any other idiot without a clue about how hard that can be in some parts of the world. Yeah I run the UN and the IAASTD. Based on the title of the thread (which was made in bad faith), there should be a much more developed discussion attacking monocropping and patented genetics. Instead, the implicit arguments are in constant favor of both. Absurd Alhazred posted:That's actually a very peculiar argument, because Ghana's GDP in 2012, for example, was $83.74 billion (Index Mundi), with 5.2% of that being health expenditures (WHO). Makes me wonder why they even need a philanthropist to do a $2 million job. Its a PR piece to accomplish the goal. I am maintaining that Vendana Shivas political assessment is correct. This end battle is not about nutrition, any more than the Monsanto campaigns in the US are about "hunger". It is about markets and patents. Absurd Alhazred posted:There may be fetishists in this thread, but the Golden Rice Project sure isn't.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:16 |
|
So, FRINGE, why do you think the awareness and coordination problem is easily solved in India despite research showing it isn't?
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:19 |
|
Kalman posted:So, FRINGE, why do you think the awareness and coordination problem is easily solved in India despite research showing it isn't?
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:22 |
|
FRINGE posted:Kalman, why do you not think that coordination and dissemination of nutrients combined with a return to mixed crop farming is a solution when the UN and IAASTD research says that it is? The UN and IASSTD research doesn't say that. It says that in Afghanistan, combined with vaccination programs, vitamin A supplementation worked. Of course, the Public Health Foundation of India's research says that in India, vitamin A supplementation didn't work. It's almost like they're different countries with different problems and the successful solution in one case may not be the most successful in another. But you would NEVER ignore unfavorable evidence, right, FRINGE?
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:25 |
|
The bottom line is that you prefer dead children to any ground being given to GM crops. I'm sorry I can't say it in a nicer way than that, but that's what all the crap you've thrown out boils down to. I'm in favor of supplements where they can do good. I'm in favor of crop diversity and local gardens where they can be developed and do good. I'm in favor of deploying golden rice as quickly as possible. The use of all three measures offer ways to solve a reprehensible problem, and together they'll do more good than independently. Your concerns about Monsanto's patent rights in this situation are stupid and insignificant, as Monsanto has made no secret as to how it views the deployment of golden rice from a legal perspective. Your desire to believe in a stupid conspiracy trumps your concern over human life and that's pretty disgusting.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:26 |
|
FRINGE posted:I did. In this thread. (Or the last one? Or both?) Im pretty sure you were there. It was doable in Afghanistan, with a population of 30 million. From that, you derive that it'd be easy to do in India's population of 1.24 billion, because hey, they're all the same, right? It'll be 'immediate', somehow. And that's a twice-yearly delivery of supplements, which isn't nearly as good as a constant supply.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:26 |
|
Obdicut posted:Why would it be acceptable to work with people who are blocking the easier way to solve the problem? And what do you mean by anti-GMO people providing supplements? Are you under the impression anti-GMO activists are in a position to deliver supplements? But you think it would be easier to get Indians to accept GMOs?
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:33 |
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I'm in favor of supplements where they can do good. I'm in favor of crop diversity and local gardens where they can be developed and do good. I'm in favor of deploying golden rice as quickly as possible. The use of all three measures offer ways to solve a reprehensible problem, and together they'll do more good than independently.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:33 |
|
Kalman posted:The UN and IASSTD research doesn't say that. It says that in Afghanistan, combined with vaccination programs, vitamin A supplementation worked. quote:CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES IN INDIA TO COMBAT VITAMIN A MALNUTRITION Kalman posted:But you would NEVER ignore unfavorable evidence, right, Kalman?
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:35 |
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:The bottom line is that you prefer dead children to any ground being given to GM crops. I'm sorry I can't say it in a nicer way than that, but that's what all the crap you've thrown out boils down to. Let's note: the golden rice project's MO is not to try and push American rice varieties into India but instead to encourage Indian farmers to cross-breed the A producing trait into commonly grown Indian varieties of rice. And what conditions have the IP holders put onto the rice? Well, they sublicensed the rights to the original researchers who can license on the following conditions: quote:Syngenta, in turn, has given the inventors a humanitarian licence to the full set of necessary technologies with the right to sublicense public research institutions and low-income farmers in developing countries. Those MONSTERS.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:39 |
|
FRINGE posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Assessment_of_Agricultural_Knowledge,_Science_and_Technology_for_Development#Final_report I am not able to comment on many of these but you are essentially touching on "technical based practice versus knowledge based practice". A Monsanto representative will be able to tell you exactly how to farm per Monsanto protocol. They can tell you when to spray, what depth and spacing to plant at, how much nitrogen to put on, etc. They won't be wrong but it is not "optimal" per say for your land. There is then the old stubborn sourdoughs, to whom you can barely tell them anything (till they get stung twice). They are way more familiar with their land's capabilities and do more preventative techniques than a Monsanto rep will ever touch. In the end, an incredibly experienced farmer should be better than a Monsanto rep. That is not to say that they will avoid Monsanto and their ilk entirely but they know the game, they only want exactly what they need and don't care to stay for the pitch. The free coffee is nice though. Local knowledge, when coupled with technical, is the most effective. I am sure that within third world countries, it is likely the local component was thrown out for the technical. A new "white man's burden" kind of scenario. Of course, local knowledge can be utter hogwash but I've heard a lot of dumb things out of technical reps too. A big reason, at least here, for GMO crops is the "lowering of the skill barrier". The old timer line is "now any idiot can grow canola". Canola is worth more than wheat but they are terrible for weeds. With glyphosate resistance, the weed problems can be trivialized (excluding glyphosate resistant weeds like kochia). People without the knowledge base to plan properly for canola now could grow it, provided they followed the companies recommendations. Hence, the popularity of GMO canola around here. Growing wheat would allow you to break even but growing canola allows you to send your kids to college. Considering many farmers also have second jobs to make ends meet, a package offering a lower threshold of risk is tempting. There are still other things to consider as well for agronomic practice, like disease control, but GMO canola is easier to handle than other varieties. The downside is that you are usually locked into a contract to move it and it is expected that you follow the companies specifications. No cheating when you spray, the herbicide comes with the seeds and you better apply it during "spray season". That is a definite problem and an unnecessary stressor on the environment. There are a whole host of problems that lead to the overemphasis of yield over any other parameter and increased environmental damage. The problem of "genetic pollution" though has nothing to do with this. For that reason, I am not fond in general of anti-gmo proponents ideas cause all of them do nothing or have severe social or environmental drawbacks. The last guy I talked with talked about using these stone cairns he read about in Ireland that could redirect cosmic radiation to increase plant growth rates exponentially. When pressed about what wavelength, he claimed that there are more types of radiation than what the EM spectrum can explain. If I come to a old timer with this agronomic information, at the least I am going to get told I am full of poo poo. There are already mainstream proponents that are attempting to bring about that paradigm shift. The "Evergreen Revolution" from M S Swaminathan is one such example. You are probably more in line with his thinking than anything coming out of Monsanto. There have also been suggestions to breed more for resiliency over yield, to reduce chemical dependencies and boost productivity through reduced disease pressure. Finally, more must be done to make farming more about stewardship than strip mining. None of this is really controversial, nor are many of the people working on it zealots in either direction. This includes even people from Monsanto.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:40 |
|
FRINGE posted:Come the gently caress on. SALR actually autocollapsed that and I skipped over it. You're right, a pilot program worked on a small scale. In 1985. Wonder why it wasn't expanded in the THIRTY loving YEARS SUBSEQUENT if it was so easy to do? On the other hand, more recent research says that larger programs in the more recent past have failed. Maybe there are reasons we can examine in the research? Why, it looks like it correlates to education, SES, and similar factors. It's almost like the pilot program worked because the researchers/aid workers pushed eggs and greens. Having your mom standing around giving you things and telling you to eat your greens is not, as the recent research showed, a scalable solution.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 04:44 |
|
Hypha posted:I am not able to comment on many of these but you are essentially touching on "technical based practice versus knowledge based practice". A Monsanto representative will be able to tell you exactly how to farm per Monsanto protocol. They can tell you when to spray, what depth and spacing to plant at, how much nitrogen to put on, etc. They won't be wrong but it is not "optimal" per say for your land. There is then the old stubborn sourdoughs, to whom you can barely tell them anything (till they get stung twice). They are way more familiar with their land's capabilities and do more preventative techniques than a Monsanto rep will ever touch. In the end, an incredibly experienced farmer should be better than a Monsanto rep. That is not to say that they will avoid Monsanto and their ilk entirely but they know the game, they only want exactly what they need and don't care to stay for the pitch. The free coffee is nice though. Local knowledge, when coupled with technical, is the most effective. I am sure that within third world countries, it is likely the local component was thrown out for the technical. A new "white man's burden" kind of scenario. Of course, local knowledge can be utter hogwash but I've heard a lot of dumb things out of technical reps too. There has been 'controversy' in the thread(s) though, about the last part where you would not expect there to be any. Several of the things I linked addressed this (important issue) specifically: quote:Considering many farmers also have second jobs to make ends meet Ive heard of Swaminathans book but never read it (and dont know if that will happen anytime soon). Ive seen his name during one of the several of these threads and do recall (like almost everyone playing the gene-trade/patent game) hes been a part of some sci/poli messes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._S._Swaminathan#Controversy quote:In a well-publicized campaign, in the 1980s, an environmental journalist Claude Alvares, accused Swaminathan of transferring the genetic wealth of rice of India, to the International Rice Research Institute. Alvares claimed that Dr. Richaria, an eminent genetic scientist and former director of Central Rice Research Institute, had objected to the transfer. Alvares also alleged that 19,000 varieties, assembled by Richaria at the Madhya Pradesh Rice Research Institute (MPRRI), were transferred to the IRRI, over ruling Richaria's objections. Richaria had claimed that he could produce varieties from traditional Indian subcontinental germ plasm, that could replicate or even increase the yield, as compared to the cross bred varieties introduced by IRRI. Claude Alvares saw this transfer of genetic resources as a part of a larger pattern of Neocolonialism- on the part of the USA. The US imports a lot of food from India (ironically right?). Its another major cash cow for everyone that can get a claw in it. Its also another topic I am sure this thread is very concerned about. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2012/05/28/india-exports-food-while-millions-starve/ quote:It’s a paradox of plenty. At a time when India ranks 67th among 81 countries in the 2011 Global Hunger Index prepared by the International Food Policy Research Institute, mountains of grain continue to rot in godowns while more recently, irate farmers spilled tonnes of potatoes on the streets in Punjab. A few months ago, it was tomato farmers in Jharkhand, and then it was the turn of onion growers in Rajasthan. And if you think this is a recent phenomenon, you are mistaken. I have seen this happening for nearly 25 years now across the country at regular intervals. quote:According to Euromonitor, retail sales in the packaged food market in India had been estimated to reach US$29.5 billion in 2012, making it the 15th largest in the world. That also represents a growth rate of 95.6% or US$14.4 billion since 2008. http://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-food-industry.aspx quote:June, 2014
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 06:10 |
|
On a totally different note, heres a direction of research finally making faster progress that I have been overjoyed about, Ive been waiting to see more and more of this stuff for years. http://www.dtu.dk/english/News/Nyhed?id=fe4b6c9a-c07a-4e2d-b87d-8a99c188eeca http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140213122358.htm https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2014/February/bacteria-ifr-collaboration http://www.caltech.edu/content/research-update-battling-infection-microbes http://www.medicaldaily.com/salmonellas-weakness-uncovered-scientists-begin-working-medication-sap-bacterias-potency-290194 The value of human biome research dwarfs the value of bullshit Monsanto shits out, its just not sexy*, and doesnt have decades of PR and spin working for it. (I will also be as spiteful and 'anti-' if it comes to battles over who owns what strains that you are allowed to eat, implant, or 'possess'. This stuff needs to remain completely public and "species-owned".) *People in an much older thread literally said they dont like normal food because it grows in dirt with bugs. Human bacteria research is a tough sell.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 06:18 |
|
FRINGE posted:On a totally different note, heres a direction of research finally making faster progress that I have been overjoyed about, Ive been waiting to see more and more of this stuff for years. Hey cool I remembered the last time you posted about this and it had nothing to do with this thread. Please take your fetish elsewhere thank you!!!
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 06:23 |
|
illrepute posted:The idea of mass distribution vitamin A supplements is also an interesting one, I'm curious if it has been tried before in India or elsewhere in the developing world (since, obviously, vitamin A supplements have been around far longer than golden rice), the results of that, and whether it could work on a large scale. It might be cheaper and meet less resistance than golden rice implementation. The main thing is distributing seeds for an important staple crop with vitamin fortification built in can make the supplementation a self sustaining enterprise, while distribution of supplement pills might be cut off at any time. It's not hard to imagine that the funding for a successful supplementation program gets cut entirely or reduced and suddenly you're back to nearly square one, but once the golden rice or similar fortified crops are in use they can't go away unless someone decides to burn all of it to the ground. A big flaming stink posted:FRINGE you are doing more infodump-and-run posts than eripsa did in his marble economy thread. I believe you mean, in both cases, a lack-of-info dump. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Jul 9, 2014 |
# ? Jul 9, 2014 06:42 |
|
Of course the issue with Golden rice is it obviously makes more sense for it to be only a limited part of production, golden rice would be mixed with mostly regular rice as effectively a supplement alongside other foods.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 07:29 |
|
FRINGE posted:
That controversy is absolute flaming bullshit. One of those landraces could have a new resistance gene for rice blast for Asian varieties, yet they would hoard them? When people want to limit the spread of germplasm, the answer always leads to money. From that little excerpt, it sounds like Richaria wanted to monopolize those varieties exclusively for their program. I've known some breeders who have done that too, to protect the prestige of their career. That he could get higher yield than the IRRI varieties is not wrong but every breeder would say that. There is also a lot more that goes into a variety than just yield. Richaria might as well have left the program, got a job with Monsanto, and took the germplasm with him.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 09:26 |
|
Keep posting garbage from Vandana Shiva, who is on record stating she would prefer that low-caste people die than a single person be permitted to use any GMO crop in India for anything, and whose main claim to fame is repeatedly lying about having a scientific education and propogating the "Indian farmer suicide" myth. There is nothing anyone else can post that will do a better job of convincing an undecided observer than the anti-GMO people retreating further and further into their "it's good when people die" bubble, cushioned by endless links to endless crackpot eco-fascists. meat sweats fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Jul 9, 2014 |
# ? Jul 9, 2014 10:45 |
|
At this point, also, the argument is strictly limited to this: do you introduce an already developed GM crop into an existing farming system with little change otherwise, or do you invest in a systemic overhaul? Activists consistently frame this problem as "given $100M devoted to solving malnourishment, how would you use it?" However, that isn't the right framing at all. Golden rice was created by people already doing research in transgenic rice who came up with a really clever idea, not people in some non-profit focused absolutely on the best imaginable solutions to worldwide malnutrition. Golden rice is here, the remaining cost is implementation, and its implementation is cheaper per benefit than every other proposal I have seen (e.g. every proposal FRINGE has posted in this thread) and most all of the criticism against it (patent rights? corporate dependence? are you joking?) is absurd. If there has been a single valid criticism against it that isn't pathetically empty at first glance, I missed it in the deluge of lovely ones. I'm quite convinced that fixing the food distribution system in India will be more effective over the long-term than golden rice. I, nor anyone else in this thread, should need that argument made. This is because — this may be surprising, I know — I'm not a total loving idiot. At best, golden rice solves Vitamin A deficiency without tackling any systemic problems that are causing malnutrition and starvation. That's really not what the decision is, though, that's just the controversy the activists are trying to generate. Almost all of the alternative "solutions" were never on the table to begin with, and those which were attempted (vitamin supplementation and small scale introduction of new crops) were unsustainable and fizzled out.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 13:24 |
|
It's similar to opposing food aid because it would be better if affected communities could grow their own food. Well yes that's blindingly obvious but that doesn't mean we should oppose food aid until that actually happens.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 13:37 |
|
Cross-post from the Politoons thread:Post 9-11 User posted:P.S. new Sorensen:
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 17:37 |
|
Taaaaaaarb! posted:Cross-post from the Politoons thread: Can I buy the potted superweed in the local flower shop? If not, all that effort was for nought.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 18:08 |
|
A friend from Vermont started posting these: Imagine how much non-profit GMO research you could fund with the money thrown at this kind of bullshit.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:45 |
|
The fact that they're calling their enemy 'big food' is telling enough. Also, I'm fine with labeling GMO foods, I assume this means nearly literally every food will be labeled. It's kinda fuckin weird to see but hey, sticker makers need jobs I guess.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 19:58 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:42 |
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:The fact that they're calling their enemy 'big food' is telling enough. I think it was a miscalculation by agribusiness to even fight this. They should have just revamped all their products to say "may contain GMO for your pleasure", or something. All of them. Not even bother checking.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 20:00 |