The Next Green Revolution
A controversial article in a recent Economist refers to further evidence of the advantages of genetically modified crops (GMOs).
"The Next Green Revolution" discusses long-standing opposition to GMOs in Europe — many on the continent "have yet to touch or taste them," the article reads — but points out that rising GMO production means it will become increasingly more expensive for Europe to avoid importing them.
I have long been concerned about the Europeans' stance on GMOs — not because Europeans are denying themselves more cost-effective food products, but because of the impact that their position has had on the poor, particularly in Africa. A number of African countries have followed Europe's lead by banning imports of GMOs. I find it to be very sad when the poor and sometimes starving are denied access to less-expensive food because of short-sighted logic in Europe.
The fact that GMOs can provide cheaper food has long been generally accepted. But critics have argued against GMOs on the basis that the crops might have long-term risks. But these risks are vague and unspecified, so to deny the advantages never seemed logical to me. Now that the possible disadvantage to GMOs has been put to rest in many parts of the world, I hope the poor and hungry in Africa and elsewhere can finally access this money-saving solution to an important problem.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Printer-friendly version
Comments
GMO crops (from GMO seeds, of course)
There has been research to show that traditional, natural crops have harvests as productive as if not more so than gmo crops and without the round-up resistant gene that is imbeded in gmo seeds.
Your article does not mention how or why gmo food is advertised as cheaper than...what?
Any risks that are considered possible are still a risk until definitely proved otherwise and this has not yet happened. The people who are wary of the risks have humanity's health as the point of reference and we all need to be wary of things that are deliberate mutations.
Which "many parts of the world " have put the "possible disadvantages to gmos" "to rest"?
As regards a "money- saving solution" for the "poor and hungry in Africa and elsewhere" : how can these people save money and increase their independence and self-reliance if companies such as Monsanto sell them terminator seeds and sterile seeds that the "poor and hungry' cannot and indeed are not allowed to even try to, plant for themselves?
Gmo seeds are to be continually bought, season by season, by the poor and hungry
so that companies such as Monsanto and the people who run them and work for them can make money off the hard-working backs of the poor and hungry who are kept in a cycle of buying gmo seed without escape. This situation is worsening as Monsanto buys up as many seed companies as possible and patents as many "new" seeds as possible as quick as possible for the end goal of profit for itself.
The development of the Terminator gene is, in my opinion, anti-life.
Anything that deliberately destroys the process of life is obviously anti-life.
And how does a Terminator- infected seed help the poor and hungry seeing as it is self-destructive of it's own reproductive processes?
How will seeds like these save money (that the poor don't have anyway, remember-that's why they are poor!) for poor and hungry people if they cannot replant a new crop from saved seed?
I can only say one
I can only say one thing:
http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/1C4FB64D50354B9A856504954B453CC...
Bring the GMO's to Europe and the world is doomed.
The earth has always generated enough eco food for its inhabitants, it's the damn political situation that's screwing everything up - people in the west need to start growing food in their backyards again.
The Next Green Revolution
I would like to thank you for the comments that you have made on my article.
In reply to your questions about the source of the statements that I made, they are from the Economist article with this title, which you can get to by clicking on the first paragraph of my article. This article in the Economist also provides some other information that is in conflict with your comments.
Regards,
Bill Early
Post new comment