[dog77_1999]

Let's face it. There are going to be another 3 billion people more on this planet in 50 years time. That is alot of mouths to feed. The world is getting richer, and people will eat more. What does this mean? It means we need food, and lots more of it. As of now, there is enough food to feed everyone and then some (presuming you could send the food without getting shot). However, the amount of farmland isn't increasing. We have a finite amount of land on this planet that we can grow food on. It seems the only way to solve this problem is with genetic engineering and cloning technologies.

While traditional farming methods have been used for thousands of years, they are not without problems. Dieases and bugs can devistate entire crops for countries causing food shortages. Too much or too little rainfall can cause peril with crops and reduce output. Genetic modification seems to be an answer to these problem. With the proper genes, crops can become resistant to insects and diesease. Crops can withstand the drier conditions or even grow better with monsoon rainfalls. In the past couple decades, crop yeilds from GE plants have signifigantly beaten their natural counterparts.

Another interesting technology is cloning. A prive cow that gives off more milk can be cloned multiple times and its success replicated in newborn calfs. The one plant that stands out in the field can be cloned and planted again and again next year boosting the output of that farm. With cloning, the makup of the organism is known, and defects can be treated accordingly.

However, there is a downside. GE contamination into regular crops could spell unknown causes to the food supply. Crops could be sold and eaten and have disasterous health consequences before scientists know what the problem is. There have already been reports of people with tomato allergies suffering because they ate corn that had a tomato gene sliced in it.

Cloning success rates are still very low. While this will improve, this doesn't mean the defects will occur. Things such as genetic mutation could destroy what made the clone so valueable. Another problem is that you are putting all your eggs in one basket. If one is bad, then all of them are bad.

So, do we continue to stop GE foods from entering the market or do we accept GE as neccesary to feed the world? What are your thoughts?

[Blue_Nose]

The thing is, GE isn't the solution to the problem. People assume that the cause of famine is a lack of food - it's not. Famine is by definition a lack of food, so how can something cause itself?

Political or social issues are the cause of famine - wars, nasty governments, civil unrest, overpopulation, etc. Throwing food at the problem makes as much sense as throwing money at it.

GE companies promote their research as "world saving" as a PR stunt. I'm pro-GE foods, because they can certainly make food production much more efficient, but it's not the shining light for the poor dusty Ugandan kid on your television like some would claim.

On a different note, humans have been genetically modifying food ever since the origins of agriculture. To top it off, if you've eaten pink grapefruit, you're probably eating the result of a science experiment that consisted of zapping seeds with powerful radiation and planting the mutants that turned out for the best. GE isn't new.

[dog77_1999]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

The thing is, GE isn't the solution to the problem. People assume that the cause of famine is a lack of food - it's not. Famine is by definition a lack of food, so how can something cause itself?

Political or social issues are the cause of famine - wars, nasty governments, civil unrest, overpopulation, etc. Throwing food at the problem makes as much sense as throwing money at it.

GE companies promote their research as "world saving" as a PR stunt. I'm not against GE foods, because they can certainly make food production much more efficient, but it's not the shining light for the poor dusty Ugandan kid on your television like some would claim.

Would you say that if we didn't have any political or social issues effecting the food supply, could we grow enough food to feed 9.5 billion people?

I am not sure but there is some truth to this. The Green Revolution of Asia was the result of getting a very good strain of rice and replicating it. Now it wouldn't be that easy, but GE could make it happen once again.

[BartSimpson]

9.5 billion people will find a way to survive. 150 years ago it was thought that the world would not handle 1 billion people and then it did.

Myself, I'm guessing that with so many people crowding together there'll inevitably be another superflu or war to reset the population to a lower number.

[Blue_Nose]

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

Would you say that if we didn't have any political or social issues effecting the food supply, could we grow enough food to feed 9.5 billion people?

Overpopulation is a cause that I mentioned, and the strains are more serious than just famine - next we'll be wondering where we're going to get all the cotton to dress 9.5 billion people, and all the lumber to build houses for 9.5 billion people. Responsible parenting needs to be addressed before we worry about what we're going to feed all the babies.

You'll note that the third world argument is typically followed by "so therefore GE foods should be allowed in our grocery stores". The motive lies in the western world, where we've got plenty of food.

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

I am not sure but there is some truth to this. The Green Revolution of Asia was the result of getting a very good strain of rice and replicating it. Now it wouldn't be that easy, but GE could make it happen once again.

It certainly helped, but their problems still exist.

[dog77_1999]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

Would you say that if we didn't have any political or social issues effecting the food supply, could we grow enough food to feed 9.5 billion people?

Overpopulation is a cause that I mentioned, and the strains are more serious than just famine - next we'll be wondering where we're going to get all the cotton to dress 9.5 billion people, and all the lumber to build houses for 9.5 billion people. Responsible parenting needs to be addressed before we worry about what we're going to feed all the babies.

You'll note that the third world argument is typically followed by "so therefore GE foods should be allowed in our grocery stores". The motive lies in the western world, where we've got plenty of food.

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

I am not sure but there is some truth to this. The Green Revolution of Asia was the result of getting a very good strain of rice and replicating it. Now it wouldn't be that easy, but GE could make it happen once again.

It certainly helped, but their problems still exist.

I understand that overpopulation is the problem. However, I believe there are only 2 choices for this. One, we grow more food until breeding habits change(the trend suggests that around 2060 the population starts to decline), or we can let famine wipe out people to lower numbers. The famines work all of the time in nature, but that wouldn't be considered humane. Anyways, back to the topic at hand.

[Toro]

Of course.

Feed the world.

[DerbyX]

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

Would you say that if we didn't have any political or social issues effecting the food supply, could we grow enough food to feed 9.5 billion people?

Overpopulation is a cause that I mentioned, and the strains are more serious than just famine - next we'll be wondering where we're going to get all the cotton to dress 9.5 billion people, and all the lumber to build houses for 9.5 billion people. Responsible parenting needs to be addressed before we worry about what we're going to feed all the babies.

You'll note that the third world argument is typically followed by "so therefore GE foods should be allowed in our grocery stores". The motive lies in the western world, where we've got plenty of food.

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

I am not sure but there is some truth to this. The Green Revolution of Asia was the result of getting a very good strain of rice and replicating it. Now it wouldn't be that easy, but GE could make it happen once again.

It certainly helped, but their problems still exist.

I understand that overpopulation is the problem. However, I believe there are only 2 choices for this. One, we grow more food until breeding habits change(the trend suggests that around 2060 the population starts to decline), or we can let famine wipe out people to lower numbers. The famines work all of the time in nature, but that wouldn't be considered humane. Anyways, back to the topic at hand.

Overpopulation isn't the problem, food distribution is.

Theoretically we grow/harvest enough food to support about 20 billion. Canada alone has the capacity to feed the world assuming that alcohol production isn't done.

[Tricks]

History lesson time! Woot!

Around 1800 Thomas Malthus predicted that the population would outstrip the food production. He believed that the population would grow exponentially (1, 2, 4, , but the production would grow geomentrically (1, 2, 3, 4). However because of the industrial revolution that proved not to be true. The production was able to keep up. So even if right now, for whatever reason we don't have enough food (which we do) then no doubt the brilliant minds of the world would find something.

Now on the food shortage/distribution, Derby is absolutely correct. My Dad is a commodity trader, and says in Brazil alone there is enough fertile land that isn't being use to feed billions of people. We aren't gonna be running out of food any time soon.

[dog77_1999]

Tricks Tricks:

History lesson time! Woot!

Around 1800 Thomas Malthus predicted that the population would outstrip the food production. He believed that the population would grow exponentially (1, 2, 4, , but the production would grow geomentrically (1, 2, 3, 4). However because of the industrial revolution that proved not to be true. The production was able to keep up. So even if right now, for whatever reason we don't have enough food (which we do) then no doubt the brilliant minds of the world would find something.

Now on the food shortage/distribution, Derby is absolutely correct. My Dad is a commodity trader, and says in Brazil alone there is enough fertile land that isn't being use to feed billions of people. We aren't gonna be running out of food any time soon.

So there would be no need to use GMOs then? Sorry, I think we are getting off topic here. I thihk the scenerio I provided was trying to give reasons why GMOs might be a good thing.

Ok, if you could engineer healthier foods, would you eat it?

[kaetz]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Overpopulation isn't the problem, food distribution is.

Amen!

-> Tricks: isn't expotentially = geometrically? 1,2,3,4 is arithmetical progression, i assume

and to the question of the poll: i personally don't want to consume GM products, but within modern system one is never safeguard against it. We simply don't have enough information about what we eat in each and every case.
This system needs to be improved IMO.
I just don't really believe any dramatic change may happen in food distribution...

[Blue_Nose]

I should also mention that GE foods are considered "intellectual property" and therefore converting our food resources to GE would effectively put world food production in the pockets of a few biotech companies. That's another debate - the bullshitness of intellectual property - but as it stands, a GE seed grown by anyone is controlled by a corporation.

Anyway, time for me to switch to the pro-GE side

kaetz kaetz:

and to the question of the poll: i personally don't want to consume GM products, but within modern system one is never safeguard against it. We simply don't have enough information about what we eat in each and every case.
This system needs to be improved IMO.
I just don't really believe any dramatic change may happen in food distribution...

How much information do you have about any other food, though?

Food is food - unless you eat something toxic or containing a pathogen, it's fine for consumption. Creating a variety of squash that contains a protein which increases resistance to drought is fine as long as the protein itself isn't harmful, nor its effect on the rest of the plant. GE foods have been the most extensively tested foods on the planet - no "natural" (see below for a discussion on that) food is as rigourously examined. That being said, the lack of evidence of any harmful health effects means new developments are no longer under the same scrutiny.

There's also a common misconception that GE foods consist of animal genes inserted into plants - this simply isn't true. I think there have been tests in which mouse genes were inserted into lettuce (maybe it was fish into strawberry - see the infamous "fishberry"), but it was never introduced into the public, or intended to. None had been, at least, the last time I reviewed this topic a year ago.

Even if that were to happen, you're not going to have some sort of fish-tomato hybrid like the anti-GE crowd would have you believe. A single gene (or two, or three) won't turn a tomato into a fish (or half a fish, or a tenth of a fish) under any circumstances, period.

People will also have you believe that GE plants are going to pollute any number of other plants (or even animals) via gene transfer - while this undoubtedly occurs, it doesn't occur in a manner any more readily than "natural" plants. North America is almost largely dependant on crop varieties imported from around the world - has the ecosystem been destroyed because of these "unnatural" introductions? Nope.

[Blue_Nose]

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

Ok, if you could engineer healthier foods, would you eat it?

The technology is by no means limited to food - one of the most ingenious solutions I've heard is the modification of cows to produce in their milk proteins or other substances that can be refined to produce pharmaceuticals.

[Tricks]

kaetz kaetz:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Overpopulation isn't the problem, food distribution is.

Amen!

-> Tricks: isn't expotentially = geometrically? 1,2,3,4 is arithmetical progression, i assume

Haha, yep. Wasn't really paying attention when I was typing.

[dog77_1999]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

dog77_1999 dog77_1999:

Ok, if you could engineer healthier foods, would you eat it?

The technology is by no means limited to food - one of the most ingenious solutions I've heard is the modification of cows to produce in their milk proteins or other substances that can be refined to produce pharmaceuticals.

They are are trying to have goats make spider silk. They are hoping to make enough to start using it in buildings.