|
Frankenfoods
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
I agree with many of the things stated about the modern state of US agriculture but it will in no way be addressed or solved by limiting or targeting GMOs. Edit: And neither is "organic" labeling a collection of targeted solutions. archangelwar fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Why does he keep talking about cash crops? When I think of GMOs I think of tomatoes and corn, not tobbaco and peanuts. Maize, cotton, and soy beans. Maize and soy beans are for animals or biogas and cotton is for clothing mostly. Anos posted:If Glyphosate is toxic then we should ban it. If some farming practices are bad then we should stop using them. Neither has anything to do with GMOs. Yes and that is an easy conclusion, i just don't think it is a very realistic one. Take a look at meat production, by this point everyone knows it comes with a big environmental price but the demand and supply for it is only increasing, and there is no real regulation trying to deter that. Sir_Lagsalot posted:Herbicide-resistant GMOs have helped farmers to switch to low or no-till farming. They have also allowed conventional farmers to switch to glyphosate, which is less harmful to the environment. Insect-resistant GMO crops have led to a decline in insecticide usage in the US. I would consider those to be examples of GMOs directly reducing some of the unsustainable practices of conventional farming. Which practices do you think GMOs will exacerbate? I am sure that Glyphosate can be used correctly and no-till practices is good for low-carbon soils that are vulnerable to tilling. Heavy tilling and soilwork is obviously the big disadvantage of organic farming, especially the ammonia release it carries with it. Though perhaps in the future this will be reduced with fuming manure in biogasplants before you use it. For an examble of GMO making wrong worse there was the case of the Monarch butterfly earlier in the thread with the Midwest farmers having nothing at inbetween their farms after acquiriring GMOs where before they would leave unplanted spots on their fields. Maybe not the worst example but a good showing of how farmers can move very quickly to maximize their lanaduse and impact once they are giving tools allowing them to do so. Just on the last page someone suggested GMOs will be able to be planted where there wasn't arable land before because of drought, if this will some day be possible who will be the one to say where this is appropriate and where it isn't appropriate. I had agronomists friends visiting California and they were very surprised to see potatoes being grown in the desert with groundwater, possibly the worst crop to local resources scenario. This is not GMO but still shows that if you make something potentially environmentally damaging possible and there is money to be made then it will be done, it is very hard to stop people from farming. I am not as such a big proponent for the strict rule set of organic farming, I think there should be a revision for a more pragmatic ruleset taking the best of organic practices and throwing out the irrational ones. But i believe that farming is best practised under strict regulation that takes into account landscape, catchments, groundwater/drinking water protection, the matrix the fields are a part of, and a balance between husbandry and edible crops. If GMO can reduce pesticide use that's great, but organic farming is already doing that so perhaps it is not the most meaningful victory. It also annoys me that you guys keep saying "That is farming not GMO" when you then keep bringing up that you think EU are stupid for not allowing GMO farming. Buller fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
I'm glad to see milkweed making a triumphant return to the thread.Buller posted:Maize, cotton, and soy beans. I think we all know what the words "cash crop" mean, just not what they have to do with a discussion on genetic modification. quote:If GMO can reduce pesticide use that's great, but organic farming is already doing that so perhaps it is not the most meaningful victory. Yield is lower for organic farming, so it requires more land for the same amount of food. Also it costs more, so fewer people can afford what's produced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Buller posted:
What the gently caress does this even mean? What do anti-scientific bans on GMO research and usage have to do with this? You are all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Oh god make it stop. Edit- If you didn't embed beeping I just hit an awful banner ad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh god make it stop. All I embedded was that Simpsons clip. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Buller posted:It also annoys me that you guys keep saying "That is farming not GMO" when you then keep bringing up that you think EU are stupid for not allowing GMO farming. what the gently caress, haha, this cant be what you actually intended to write is it? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Buller posted:Maize, cotton, and soy beans. Are you high? Do you know how much corn humans eat? Grits? Polenta? Hoe Cakes? Corn is the grain thats traditionally fed the working man for centuries and you call it a cash crop? Edit: Are you one of those types who think all field corn goes to animal feed or something? Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Are you high? Do you know how much corn humans eat? Grits? Polenta? Hoe Cakes? Corn is the grain thats traditionally fed the working man for centuries and you call it a cash crop? To be honest any product that is sold on the market is defined as a cash crop. All cereals are cash crops, in closing conventional, GMO and organic. Honestly organic is the worst of the bunch because it is grown solely for the higher market value. This is a big part of the organic scam, grow a high margin cash crops and then condemned your competitors for growing a cash crop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Buller posted:I am sure that Glyphosate can be used correctly Yes. And you know what? It is. Farmers don't massively overuse glyphosate because they pay for the amount they use, and the labor to apply it. There's literally zero incentive for overuse. same idiot posted:If GMO can reduce pesticide use that's great, but organic farming is already doing that so perhaps it is not the most meaningful victory. No, organic farming isn't reducing pesticide use. It shifts pesticides from glyphosate to pesticides organic producers are allowed to use - which are mostly much worse!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Someone post the stuff about how irganic copper has made it so the fields cant return to pastureland.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Buller posted:If GMO can reduce pesticide use that's great, but organic farming is already doing that so perhaps it is not the most meaningful victory. No, that is wrong. Organic farms use a lot more pesticide than non-organic farms, and the organic varieties are just as dangerous if not worse. quote:It also annoys me that you guys keep saying "That is farming not GMO" when you then keep bringing up that you think EU are stupid for not allowing GMO farming. I support both sustainable agriculture and genetic modification. So it's annoying to me when you and others use genetic modification as a scapegoat for unsustainable farming practices. The EU are stupid for prohibiting the cultivation of perfectly safe crops. The anti-GMO movement is stupid for blaming unsustainable farming practices on genetic modification; those practices were in use long before the first "GMO" crop ever existed, and they would continue to be used even if you banned all forms of genetic modification.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Case in point, yesterday you posted this:Buller posted:[quote="Buller" post="464097287"] Here you're linking genetic modification to the cultivation of cash crops. But we've been growing cash crops for thousands of years. You're suggesting that genetic modification is bad because cash crops are bad, but that makes no sense at all
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
In addition to general scientific literacy problems, the EU has some really bad regulatory capture baked into the design of its laws-part of a compromise with agriculture to get the whole thing to happen. I don't know the area well enough to speak to detail, but it's likely that this will retard the use of appropriate technology in some areas and, ironically, speed it up in some others.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Monsanto is being purchased by Bayer. Just confirmed a few minutes ago. Hopefully under a new name they'll be able to develop stuff in peace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Good luck with that, now they'll just bring up Zyklon B and other historic poo poo Bayer was involved in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:In addition to general scientific literacy problems, the EU has some really bad regulatory capture baked into the design of its laws-part of a compromise with agriculture to get the whole thing to happen. I don't know the area well enough to speak to detail, but it's likely that this will retard the use of appropriate technology in some areas and, ironically, speed it up in some others. The EU regulatory framework for GM and pesticides is loving nightmare and about to get worse with the discussion on endocrine disruption. There's a reason only one new active ingredient for pesticides has made its way onto EU markets in the last 5 years or so, and that the last GM-trait crop (I think it was BT cotton but can't remember) that was about to be approved was withdrawn by the company as they couldn't see an EU market for it. EU politics are terrible in case of agricultural technology as they basically rely on qualified majority voting, and if France and Germany decide to play funny games with it for political/election reasons, you get garbage policy making like the current glyphosate stalemate (compromise solution-ed into yet another report to make secret-double-sure that it's safe), the organic farming reform (stuck in the mud over Max Residue Levels), the organic seed reform (hilariously bad), and the new legal opinion on New Breeding Techniques like CRISPR (stuck in a drawer because no national government wants the bad political headache from dealing with it). The only thing that everybody seems to like is drones and sensors and Big Data. Because it's cool to say Big Data. Big Data.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Big Data. Thanks for all the info! I only really know the PDO mess, which isn't really directly related.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Big Data. Thanks for all the info! I only really know the PDO mess, which isn't really directly related. It's literally my job 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
So do the goons ITT consider there to be any validity to organic/"consumer consciousness" at all? My mother is super high strung about buying organic strawberries free range eggs and gets on my case for not doing the same, since non-organic strawberries have significantly more pesticides than your average fruit. Then again the organic strawberries at my local Trader Joes are owned by Driscolls, who supposedly pay their workers $6 for 12 hours of work 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:So do the goons ITT consider there to be any validity to organic/"consumer consciousness" at all? My mother is super high strung about buying organic strawberries free range eggs and gets on my case for not doing the same, since non-organic strawberries have significantly more pesticides than your average fruit. No. "Organic" is bullshit in that it has no measurable positive benefits of any kind. It's a meaningless buzzword that is used to justify charging more for produce. Even if the pesticide residue claim is true, it makes no difference as it's still way below the level to have any detectable health effect. As a boss of mine used to say, "What difference does a difference make if it doesn't make any difference?" There is benefit to buying local produce, as it's often better-tasting varieties that don't travel well, but that's about the only advantage. A surprising number of farm stands sell the same produce you get at the grocery store, though, so don't take anything at face value. Verify their claims.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:So do the goons ITT consider there to be any validity to organic/"consumer consciousness" at all? My mother is super high strung about buying organic strawberries free range eggs and gets on my case for not doing the same, since non-organic strawberries have significantly more pesticides than your average fruit. The average fruit is already non-organic, and organic food usually has even more pesticides sprayed on them than non-organic food Cage free eggs you could make a morality argument for, but only if you really know the conditions that the chickens are living in; iirc most "cage-free" environments are still terrible. Cage-free invokes an image of chickens walking around in nice grassy fields but the reality is often far from that. But there are also plenty of egg providers that treat their chickens well, and if that's the kind of thing that you want to support then by all means do that, but you should probably verify it first because the Cage-free label is meaningless Buy local,not organic. If local happens to also be organic that's fine, but no need to restrict yourself
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
We used to have one of those vegetable delivery services, and they had two plans to choose from: local or organic. The local providers are all small farms, they just don't qualify for the organic label for whatever reason. The organic box is mostly poo poo being shipped in from California, I guess for the yuppies who care more about organic ideological purity than supporting small farms or reducing fossil fuel usage We eventually canceled our service when we expanded our garden
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:
Would be nice if organic expanded to labor practices but welp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Something that sounds nice if you don't think about it too much and is almost exclusively sold to the gullible? Unregulated labor markets sound pretty Organic to me
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The average fruit is already non-organic, and organic food usually has even more pesticides sprayed on them than non-organic food Except you don't want to buy local for a lot of things, because it's wasteful to grow/raise it where you are. This could mean anything from needing extra fertilizer to needing an undue amount of irrigation to requiring partial or total growing indoors in some manner of actively climate-controlled facility. All because most places aren't great at growing a lot of things, and what grows well changes frequently. You also often aren't reducing fossil fuel usage by buying local either, as there can easily be less fossil fuel used overall to say, get oranges from Florida than to get oranges grown in North Dakota (which would need a lot more fossil fuel usage in order to be successfully grown with the climate/growing season restrictions). Though keep in mind things like milk and eggs are usually going to be produced very locally in the first place, because they're a hassle to actually transport very long distances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Sander's has always touted the Anti-GMO line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Sander's has always touted the Anti-GMO line. That's not the part that's psyducking me. Look at his rationale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That's not the part that's psyducking me. Look at his rationale. No, that's pretty normal anti-GMO stuff: OMG Profits and Big Farming, while supporting an "Organic" Industry that is raising prices rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
 has been making the rounds on FB. Besides taking something labeled "possibly carcinogenic" as carcinogenic, apparently people don't know what Bayer already does. They are #1 in pesticide sales.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Tom Clancy is Dead posted:
I'm a savvy consumer, so I think it's pretty clear that they sell asprin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Except you don't want to buy local for a lot of things, because it's wasteful to grow/raise it where you are. This could mean anything from needing extra fertilizer to needing an undue amount of irrigation to requiring partial or total growing indoors in some manner of actively climate-controlled facility. All because most places aren't great at growing a lot of things, and what grows well changes frequently. If you're in North Dakota then you shouldn't eat a lot of oranges. Buying seasonally goes hand in hand with buying local, likewise for buying crops that actually grow where you live. Don't eat tons of pineapple if you live in Connecticut
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That's not the part that's psyducking me. Look at his rationale. That multinational corporations with monopolistic market shares make profits to the detriment of the consumer?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If you're in North Dakota then you shouldn't eat a lot of oranges. Hey man, I'd eat nopales, cholla, mesquite, and cactus fruit if it wasn't marketed towards dumb rich urbanites and cost an arm and a leg. It's not my fault it's sold as a designer food for the wealthy and that almost no one grows it, instead growing cotton and field maize  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If you're in North Dakota then you shouldn't eat a lot of oranges. But there's nothing wrong with eating  out of season foods. You really aren't likely to be saving anything by eating from some tiny "local" farm instead of eating a small portion of the big ol load of pineapples that got sent up the seacoast by one of the most efficient transportation methods in the world.Buller posted:That multinational corporations with monopolistic market shares make profits to the detriment of the consumer? Neither Bayer nor Monsanto have monopolistic market shares, unless you don't know what the word monopoly means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
A lot of "eat local" rhetoric relies on the idea that transportation costs are some incredible cost to society. In reality, even if you included a reasonable (or even more than reasonable) carbon tax to gasoline to account for externalities, transportation would still be one of the lowest costs to the price of food.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Cage free eggs is fine, that's a moral argument not a scientific one, though you gotta look past the label because it doesn't mean poo poo. I am happy to pay a premium for companies that treat their animals well, but the label itself I mostly a marketing gimmick. Also Bayer is buying Monsanto? But Bayer is all the evil stuff people accuse Monsanto of being! How am I supposed to defend them now? (Half joking)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Tom Clancy is Dead posted:
"Once the company that got bought is in charge things will be even worse!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 17:11
|
|