Let's be honest.

[Choice2U]

The question still has not been answered about how would we be feeding the majority of the 6B people today without the advancements of the past 20 years through pesticides and GM science. Even though there still is high starvation rates, a billion more people are eating today than 25 years ago. Parsley, your concerns are about potential FUTURE deaths from these technologies. My concerns are about the 1B people that would have starved over the past 25 years had we not had these production gains. You don't have to feed the world but society as a whole has a responsibility to try.

[charliep]

Would be cautious in trying to relate biotech and feeding the world to date. The crops that have used biotech has mainly been industrial crops used in the developed world as livestock feed (corn/soybean meal) and recently biofuels. Increasing middle class/increasing meat consumption has impacted in some parts of the developing world are benefiting somewhat as they improve income/diets.

Vegetable oil is perhaps a different story given this is one of the first places the developing world is spending money to increase calorie intake. That brings in palm oil however. A general comment is the growth is world vegetable oil consumption has been what could best be described as astounding.

Third world biotech has been more through things like golden rice, Bt cotton, etc.

[parsley]

If you believe that genetic modification of grain will feed the starving masses, you are only fooling yourself.

'Starving Third World I' from this past decade will be refilmed, in real time, in 2029, as 'Starving Third World III'

Surely you will acknowledge that starvation is not a food production problem; rather it is a food distribution problem; hence, a political problem.

The African continent planting alone, could feed the world for many moons.

Don''t try and sell us the starving people crap. It taints your future argument as suspect. Pars

[parsley]

"Epoxidized" vegetable oils charlie p, form the base of a lot of industrial products; hence the demand increase by %. An industrialized nation basic ingredient.

<p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong>[URL="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Epoxidized vegetable oils &btnG=Google Search&meta=&aq=null&oq="](Not all veggie oil is swallowed)[/URL]</strong></p>

[charliep]

Agree 100 %. Bio plastics, biofuels (including additives and fuel for environmentally sensitive areas), newspaper ink, etc, etc.

Will also disagree that issue is not a food production problem in third world.

I highlight the expression - Give a person a fish and they are full for day. Teach a person how to fish and they are full for lifetime.

The needs of third world agriculture are capital, resources and knowledge first. Then comes the application of technology. That brings the discussion back to the thread topic and how much/little biotech should be used in growing food. Biotech (however is defined) to date has been used in industrial crops or feed converted to meat.

[parsley]

Teach a man to fish?

Ethiopians, for centuries knew more about growing crops and about cooking varieties of crops than even today, we can begin to fathom. Asia, too. Somalians know how to grow food, charliep, know how to fish!

The problem is they get butchered by machettes when they are holding the fishing rod. That is what I mean by a political problem

If food supply was the main reason for genetic modification, then in a country like India where there are truly some hungry children, ...the priority would be on the modification staple FOOD crops. Cereals for example, that would feed the masses.

It isn't. In fact, Monsanto's priority in India is to mofify the genes of cotton and brinjal. Yes, cotton. And brinjal! Brinjal or eggplant as we call it, is NOT a staple of (Like fran eating beets. LOL)

If you argued that genetic modification should go forward because cheap cotton from India in voluminous quantities will benefit me as a mutual fund shareholder, I agree.

Or argue that the economic activity from growing the cotton and resulting employment in India will trickle down slowly but surely and benefit all, compared to what they now have. I agree.

Promoting the noble benefits of modifying traits in genes that poor people cannot afford, is not logical, nor is introducing them to third world agriculture under the guise of teaching the locals how to read gps.

[parsley]

Ianben

You asked "why".

The point is you chose not to take the H1N1. I did. Ironic, isn't it?

We each had our own reasons for making the choice we did.

The reason(s), is not important to anyone except ourselves.

As it should be.

I want the same choice with my food.

[ianben]

An interesting program just shown on TV here. Do not know if the link will work in Canada

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pdjmk/Horizon_20092010_How_Many_People_Can_Live_on_Plane t_Earth/

[bduke]

ianben.... Your link accessed the BBC ... but a
message says "BBC iPlayer TV programmes are
available to play in UK only".

Could you summarize the message from this
program?

About 3 or 4 years ago "World Population" was
discussed at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The message was that our Globe is basically
overpopulated above 4 1/2 billion people.

I think this was based upon factors such as
pollution, food availability and security, natural
resources, cultural harmony etc..... but I wasn't
their. This info is was passed on to me.

I am curious about the message being
communicated on the program you suggested we
access.

Thank you.... Bill

[charliep]

Always interesting to deal with someone who only views the world as black and white when there are many shades of grey. I highlight the foodnavigator article on potatoes developed by mutagenics.

What would a mutagenic wheat variety mean that had drought tolerance to Africa? The reality is the cost benefit and from there risk assessment means this type of research will not occur. Big boys look at poor payback and high risk. Others - not enough resouces to even consider playing in this game.

But maybe the answer is to work with plant breeders in the third world to develop breeding technology that fits their needs.

[charliep]

ianben

Are there herbicide tolerant crops in the UK/Europe. Clearfield crops are developed in Canada through mutagenssis - manipulating gene structure through things like radiation, sometimes bacteria (getting into science I am not too familiar with). The main idea is not new genetic material is introduced but rather genes can be reorganized or manipulated within a plant species type.

[charliep]

Didn't say it well. Here is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency definition.

"Mutagenesis" is the use of methods to physically change or "mutate" the genetic sequence, without adding DNA from another organism. Various chemicals and ionizing radiation can be used to invoke these changes. "Site-directed mutagenesis" can also be used to invoke changes in specific genes. In plants, such agents are used to change a plant's genetic sequence, and the plant can pass on these new characteristics to its offspring.

[ianben]

Parsley

We each had our own reasons for making the choice we did.

The reason(s), is not important to anyone except ourselves.

As it should be.

I want the same choice with my food.

It was you who mentioned the horse and buggy earlier and I assume from your comments you have accepted the inovation in travel and also inovation in medicine.

As I see it you still have the choice in food but seek to limit mine because you fear a risk which you are willing to accept to protect your health.

I found the above program very interesting

Having four children myself and loving them all and their differences. Life would be very different with just the eldest.
Should they be allowed the same choice?

Will that choice lead to a Ruandan solution of genocide and murder. Something even worse?

I dont believe my children, or the children of rest of North America and Europe, can be persuaded to live on their 2 hectare equivalent but perhaps one child per couple as in China might work.

Would you be willing to have the choice of how many children you have taken away for the good of the planet?

[ianben]

Pity you cant see it Here is the preview.

In a Horizon special, naturalist Sir David Attenborough investigates whether the world is heading for a population crisis.

In his lengthy career, Sir David has watched the human population more than double from 2.5 billion in 1950 to nearly seven billion. He reflects on the profound effects of this rapid growth, both on humans and the environment.

While much of the projected growth in human population is likely to come from the developing world, it is the lifestyle enjoyed by many in the West that has the most impact on the planet. Some experts claim that in the UK consumers use as much as two and a half times their fair share of Earth's resources.

Sir David examines whether it is the duty of individuals to commit not only to smaller families, but to change the way they live for the sake of humanity and planet Earth

Nearly midnight here so off to bed. I will start a new thread and try to put on some more tomorrow.

[parsley]

Black and white to me, charliep, means acknowledging that some parts of the world cannot afford a malaria shot, let alone a buy a new muta-potato.

Genetic modification is not the cure for hunger, imho. And farmers shouldn't have a guilt trip put on us insinuating Canadian farmers are responsible for feeding the hungry masses. Pooey.

And Canadian taxpayers shouldn't have a guilt trip put on them either, so that they will feel obligated to hand out huge tax exemptions and huge grants because the end result will feed the hungry of the world. Poopey-fooey.

And farmers shouldn't have a guilt trip put on them so they will portion out yet more checkoff money to fund GM funscience for the reason of feeding the masses.

charliep, give me at least a reasonably reasonable reason and I'll probably be a better ally. LOL

Pars