I was talking to some of my friends the other day and the topic of gm food came while we were talking about world hunger!

 

 

 

And it got me thinking, if gm foods are the solution to the world hunger problem, why hasn't anything been done about it?

 

 

 

I mean couldn't the UN arrange a gm food drive or somthing?

 

 

 

What do you think?

While GM food has a lot of potential, it's not the end-all be-all solution some people make it out to be. For one thing, a rice plant created in a lab will never have the same resistance to local diseases and parasites as the plants the people are used to growing have. In the end, this could mean that GM plants will actually have a lower yield than the traditional crops. The possibility of GM food as an end to world hunger should definiately be researched, but we shouldn't expect all our problems to be solved today or tomorrow.

It's still, also, somewhat of an unknown quantity, as in scientists don't know all the effects it could have on human beings. Research may show that nothing out of the ordinary should occurr, but stranger things have happened...

Personally, I think world hunger is mostly a political issue. Think of the thousands of tons of food the UN and other organizations send to African countries, only to have them intercepted by local warlords and sold on the black market. Most of the world's starving are in these nations, sadly.

I've read an interview from an african diplomat, and he actually stated all the help given by richer nations and UN just makes Africa more and more undeveloped. That's because when the food/supplys arrive there, they are either stolen by the rulers of the country and sold (wich just makes the elite richer) or, if they go to the poor population, that needs the food, they aren't THAT helpful.

 

However, as there are always donations coming from foreign countries, governments and local associations just don't have to bother creating conditions for developing Africa on their on, they just keep expecting more help.

 

That keeps Africa poor and dependent.

 

 

 

So, I think that GM food, if used by UN to "feed Africa", would just prolong the continent's undevelopment (what may be really convenient for the richer countries governments...).

It's still, also, somewhat of an unknown quantity, as in scientists don't know all the effects it could have on human beings. Research may show that nothing out of the ordinary should occurr, but stranger things have happened...

 

 

 

GM crops are no different to things like synthetic insulin, cutting and pasting the genetic information you know already works into something else to make it stronger. Most of these GM crops take a decade to come into use, similar time frames to when drugs come into common use. Saying something bad might happen is like saying you might get struck by lightning.

 

 

 

While GM food has a lot of potential, it's not the end-all be-all solution some people make it out to be. For one thing, a rice plant created in a lab will never have the same resistance to local diseases and parasites as the plants the people are used to growing have. In the end, this could mean that GM plants will actually have a lower yield than the traditional crops. The possibility of GM food as an end to world hunger should definiately be researched, but we shouldn't expect all our problems to be solved today or tomorrow.

 

 

 

So it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t improve yields and isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t disease resistant so why are we using these inferior seeds?

For one thing, a rice plant created in a lab will never have the same resistance to local diseases and parasites as the plants the people are used to growing have. In the end, this could mean that GM plants will actually have a lower yield than the traditional crops.

 

How do you know that? I think people make too many assumptions about GM foods, moreso sourcing from unneccessary paranoia(not you, Necro). Where did the idea come from that GM foods could be bad for people anyway?

GM foods are PERFECTLY SAFE. The main thing about GM foods is that they are not processed naturally. Like the first reply said, they're made in laboratories.

 

 

 

However, the UN is so stupid that they deem them as "unsafe." Coincidentally, this was after the US donated millions of GM foods to Africa. Instead of giving money to the UN to give to the African nations (which is intercepted by the UN bureaucrats and African warlords), we give them GM food. Better, right?

 

 

 

Unless the UN is involved. :roll:

Most of what we eat is genetically modified. Plump juicy tomatos didn't just spring from the earth, they were genetically modified by thousands of iterations of planting and harvesting only the plants with the desired attributes.

 

 

 

Just because something is genetically engineered using elbow grease and time instead of technology doesn't make it any more inherently good for you or "natural".

 

 

 

In terms of being a solution to world hunger however, GM foods are pretty overrated - especially considering there is enough food already on the planet to ensure no-one ever went hungry. The hunger problem is caused by people, not by a shortage of food.

Most of what we eat is genetically modified. Plump juicy tomatos didn't just spring from the earth, they were genetically modified by thousands of iterations of planting and harvesting only the plants with the desired attributes.

 

 

 

Just because something is genetically engineered using elbow grease and time instead of technology doesn't make it any more inherently good for you or "natural".

 

 

 

In terms of being a solution to world hunger however, GM foods are pretty overrated - especially considering there is enough food already on the planet to ensure no-one ever went hungry. The hunger problem is caused by people, not by a shortage of food.

 

 

 

There is a difference between scientific breeding and genetic manipulation. Those juicy tomatoes are bred like cattle. Farmers don't grow them in laboratories.

There is a difference between scientific breeding and genetic manipulation. Those juicy tomatoes are bred like cattle. Farmers don't grow them in laboratories.

 

 

 

Not in the end product there isn't. Thats like saying there's a difference between 4 and 4 depending on whether the addition is 2 + 2 or 3 + 1.

There is a difference between scientific breeding and genetic manipulation. Those juicy tomatoes are bred like cattle. Farmers don't grow them in laboratories.

 

 

 

Not in the end product there isn't. Thats like saying there's a difference between 4 and 4 depending on whether the addition is 2 + 2 or 3 + 1.

 

Except those are different methods, even if you think the end product is the same. With artificial selection, you're not directly modifying anything. No gene splicing, no direct changes that have been altered to their DNA. Since we don't know everything about genetics, we don't know if there is or isn't any other alterations that could be existing that we don't know of by changing the base nucleotides. Some enzymes that are changed to change one factor may indirectly influence another, and it's always possible that unintentionally it could happen. With artifical selection, it's a little bit more natural than literally changing the genetic code of something.

Except those are different methods, even if you think the end product is the same. With artificial selection, you're not directly modifying anything. No gene splicing, no direct changes that have been altered to their DNA. Since we don't know everything about genetics, we don't know if there is or isn't any other alterations that could be existing that we don't know of by changing the base nucleotides. Some enzymes that are changed to change one factor may indirectly influence another, and it's always possible that unintentionally it could happen. With artifical selection, it's a little bit more natural than literally changing the genetic code of something.

 

 

 

We don't know everything about mathematics either, but 1 + 3 and 2 + 2 still make exactly the same 4. It's like "artificial" flavours and colours in food. It doesn't make half a rat's rear-end's worth of difference whether you synthesise 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde or squeeze it out of a bean pod, it still smells and tastes like vanilla.

Except those are different methods, even if you think the end product is the same.

 

 

 

So... 2+2=4 and 8/2=4? :P (just joking adam)

 

 

 

 

 

In terms of being a solution to world hunger however, GM foods are pretty overrated - especially considering there is enough food already on the planet to ensure no-one ever went hungry. The hunger problem is caused by people, not by a shortage of food.

 

 

 

This is my opinion exactly.

problem is getting the food to the poor. Hard to distribute.

problem is getting the food to the poor. Hard to distribute.

 

 

 

No it's not. Moving the food around is the least of the problems. Stopping it being syphoned off, getting it donated rather than binned and generally getting people to give a damn about their fellow mankind are far bigger obstacles.

For one thing, a rice plant created in a lab will never have the same resistance to local diseases and parasites as the plants the people are used to growing have. In the end, this could mean that GM plants will actually have a lower yield than the traditional crops.

 

How do you know that? I think people make too many assumptions about GM foods, moreso sourcing from unneccessary paranoia(not you, Necro). Where did the idea come from that GM foods could be bad for people anyway?

 

 

 

It's a huge argument over what MIGHT happen!

 

 

 

Ppl have had bad experiences with solutions theat seem to solve problems quickly/cheaply. Take the exaple of asbestos, 20 years ago, a "perfect" building product. Today, a carcinogenic disaster!

I beliove they are exccelent in theory but extensive long term studies need to be done to make sure its right and no damage to the ecosystem will be done. You could release a strain of a GM plant that cross pollimnates with a weed to create soem super weed that cant be killed. You just dont know and only long term testing will ever yeild the answers.

 

Ppl have had bad experiences with solutions theat seem to solve problems quickly/cheaply. Take the exaple of asbestos, 20 years ago, a "perfect" building product. Today, a carcinogenic disaster!

 

 

 

I beliove they are exccelent in theory but extensive long term studies need to be done to make sure its right and no damage to the ecosystem will be done. You could release a strain of a GM plant that cross pollimnates with a weed to create soem super weed that cant be killed. You just dont know and only long term testing will ever yeild the answers.

 

 

 

So how long do you think it should be studied for? Every GM crop has been in the pipeline on average 10 years, these solutions are not cheap/quick; they require as much work/testing as a new drug or medical procedure.

I'm not a scientist, I have no place to decide that as i have no knowledge about the subject.

problem is getting the food to the poor. Hard to distribute.

 

 

 

No it's not. Moving the food around is the least of the problems. Stopping it being syphoned off, getting it donated rather than binned and generally getting people to give a damn about their fellow mankind are far bigger obstacles.

 

 

 

How is moving food around not a problem? I think it would be just a bit difficult to transfer enough food to feed hunreds of millions of people, don't you?

 

 

 

Soul is exactly right though. For all scientists know, it could even create some kind of "super weed" since the weeds might eventually build up some kind of reistance to whatever the GM crops are using to repel weeds. It's not possible to predict.

Soul is exactly right though. For all scientists know, it could even create some kind of "super weed" since the weeds might eventually build up some kind of reistance to whatever the GM crops are using to repel weeds. It's not possible to predict.

 

 

 

That's exactly what happens all of the time! Scientists use genetic engineeering and combinations of plants (for instance: they combine a certain type of strawberry that's resistant to cold and one that's resistant to rocky soil to produce a "super" strawberry plant).

 

 

 

Then the weeds have to get tougher to beat this competitive "super" strawberry that's cutting into their dirt and nutrients. It's called evolution.

 

 

 

Of course, this is the ONLY type of evolution out there. Microevolution. Macroevolution has already been debated, so let's not go there.

How is moving food around not a problem? I think it would be just a bit difficult to transfer enough food to feed hunreds of millions of people, don't you?

 

 

 

What did you eat for breakfast this morning? Did you grow it yourself or did you purchase it from a supermarket. Did the supermarket grow it themselves out the back or did they receive it on the back of a truck from a distributor? Did the distributor make it in a portable production facility on their truck or did they pick it up from a manufacturer? Did the manufacturer grow the raw ingredients on site or did they in turn recieve those from a wholesaler?

 

 

 

There is absolutely no problem distributing food to hundreds of millions of people because it happens every day. There are 260 million people in the USA, more than 99.9% of them have (more than by the looks of them) enough to eat. Very few of them grow their own food. Same story in Europe, Japan, Australia etc.

Off topic but sort of related: When they have those comercials where "ten cents a day can save this childs life." I mean like why doesn't the guy on the commercial do anything

 

What did you eat for breakfast this morning? Did you grow it yourself or did you purchase it from a supermarket. Did the supermarket grow it themselves out the back or did they receive it on the back of a truck from a distributor? Did the distributor make it in a portable production facility on their truck or did they pick it up from a manufacturer? Did the manufacturer grow the raw ingredients on site or did they in turn recieve those from a wholesaler?

 

 

 

There is absolutely no problem distributing food to hundreds of millions of people because it happens every day. There are 260 million people in the USA, more than 99.9% of them have (more than by the looks of them) enough to eat. Very few of them grow their own food. Same story in Europe, Japan, Australia etc.

 

 

 

Excuse me, maybe I should have clarified.

 

 

 

I mean transfering food ACROSS SEAS to people in say, Africa. Even if it wouldn't cost millions of dollars just to ship food across the ocean, how would the food get distributed to the homeless people in Africa? It is a DEVLOPING country, and a lot of places there don't even have roads. How do you expect the trucks to distribute the food to these places in the middle of no where?

 

 

 

Just think about how much it would cost though. It's not exactly cheap to A. put the food onto ships B. the fuel/crew costs of moving a ship across an ocean C. unloading the food D. somehow distributing the food.

 

 

 

It just doesn't make sense. Do you get where I am going? I should have clarified, but I thought it was already known we were talking about Africa. My apologies.