Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Subsidizing crops causes more of those crops to be grown.
Also Farm subsidies artificially lower the prices of those foods. In a free market system non-subsidized crops have a hard time competing. Ed Butz was an idiot.
I am talking the planet Earth and it's population with regards to GM crops, not the narrow-minded elitist American FUD perspective...
Subsidizing crops will not help in drought prone areas nor will subsidies help stop crop diseases or insects that damage, destroy and consume crops...
Typical American view, if one throws enough money at a problem it will go away...
I see a Green Forum favorite phrase is regurgitated, calling someone an idiot™ behind their back...
Have you had personal discussions or debates with this Mr Butz to come to such a learned adult conclusion?
BTW, thanks for the clarification of which Ed Butz you are talking about considering this person was not mentioned in the article I posted nor in the URL posted within that article...
As health fears ebb, Africa looks at easing GM crop bans
Thu Jun 6, 2013 9:54am EDT
Quote:
BRUSSELS/JOHANNESBURG, June 5 (Reuters) - African countries keen to improve crop yields, reduce hunger and protect themselves from climate change have begun to reassess their objections to genetically modified crops, after following Europe's lead in largely banning the technology.
While North and South American producers enthusiastically embraced genetically modified crops nearly two decades ago and use is spreading in Asia, many European and African countries have banned it, in part because of public fear of health risks.
For many governments, those health concerns have eased after years in which genetically modified food has been grown and consumed safely around the world.
In the nearly two decades since they were first commercialized, genetically modified (GM) crops have gained ground on their conventional counterparts. The vast majority are grown in five countries. Four crops feature, with two main traits: herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. See slideshow (below).
FUD = fear, uncertainty and doubt = fallacious argument, disinformation tactic appealing to fear (argumentum ad metum). Both sides do it... no one is holy on this hill. There is no difference between saying "All GMO cause health risk" and saying "We'd all starve without GMO" -- both are propaganda fear tactics.
Earl Butz: Nixon-era Secretary of Agriculture who re-engineered American farm bills popularizing corporate farm subsidies. Best known for "Get Big or Get Out."
The insertion of subsidies into the equation casts doubt on "if sales are increasing the product must be good/better". Controlled market pricing and farm subsidies have a direct effect on the amount of produce that is grown. The American farming industries that are heavily subsidized and governmentally promoted are also those that have the highest rate of GMO usage. Therefore, "The crop is superior because it's is being sown more frequently" is an example of circular reasoning... logical fallacy. It would be more accurate to say "The crop is being sown more frequently because it is the crop being subsidized and promoted, and is not necessarily a reflection or indicator of the crop's inherent superior qualities."
FUD = fear, uncertainty and doubt = fallacious argument, disinformation tactic appealing to fear (argumentum ad metum). Both sides do it... no one is holy on this hill. There is no difference between saying "All GMO cause health risk" and saying "We'd all starve without GMO" -- both are propaganda fear tactics.
Thank you.
I see the phrase thrown around, commonly as if it were an insult. but, ... a person can to be sure. So thank you.
Quote:
... Earl Butz: Nixon-era Secretary of Agriculture who re-engineered American farm bills popularizing corporate farm subsidies. Best known for "Get Big or Get Out."
The insertion of subsidies into the equation casts doubt on "if sales are increasing the product must be good/better". Controlled market pricing and farm subsidies have a direct effect on the amount of produce that is grown. The American farming industries that are heavily subsidized and governmentally promoted are also those that have the highest rate of GMO usage. Therefore, "The crop is superior because it's is being sown more frequently" is an example of circular reasoning... logical fallacy. It would be more accurate to say "The crop is being sown more frequently because it is the crop being subsidized and promoted, and is not necessarily a reflection or indicator of the crop's inherent superior qualities."
When tax-dollars are thrown at one segment of an industry, all statistics of it's 'growth' from that point on, become meaningless.
The primary reason for organic produce to be more expense than conventional [in instances where it is more expensive] is because conventional produce is subsidized with tax-dollars.
All crop production increases.
GMO crops increase their yields as years go by.
Conventional crops increase their yields as years go by.
Organic crops increase their yields as years go by.
We could jump on any one of them, give them subsidies, and 'feed the world'.
The insertion of subsidies into the equation casts doubt on "if sales are increasing the product must be good/better". Controlled market pricing and farm subsidies have a direct effect on the amount of produce that is grown. The American farming industries that are heavily subsidized and governmentally promoted are also those that have the highest rate of GMO usage. Therefore, "The crop is superior because it's is being sown more frequently" is an example of circular reasoning... logical fallacy. It would be more accurate to say "The crop is being sown more frequently because it is the crop being subsidized and promoted, and is not necessarily a reflection or indicator of the crop's inherent superior qualities."
Do I talk about AMERICAN subsidies and increased GM crop growth in AMERICA?
~NO~
I talk and present FACTS about the increased GM usage WORLDWIDE... (Refer to Post #522 as an example).....
And please, this time post accredited organizations that do not have ties (or in the pockets of) the anti-GM anti-technology gaggle....
Where is the PROOF that people worldwide are dying or contracting illnesses because of GM crops since they were introduced 40 something years ago....
As you and I agreed on over 400 posts ago there will be no resolution to this debate, especially here in this thread, people will believe what they want, let the facts speak for themselves decades from now....
I continue to present new FACTS rather than just more conjecture and the same old BS....
I'll wait for the PROOF that the American government is subsidizing farmers WORLDWIDE to plant GM crops... In America who DOESN'T get subsidies from the government? Picking on one segment is ludicrous.....
Do I talk about AMERICAN subsidies and increased GM crop growth in AMERICA?
~NO~
I talk and present FACTS about the increased GM usage WORLDWIDE... (Refer to Post #522 as an example).....
And please, this time post accredited organizations that do not have ties (or in the pockets of) the anti-GM anti-technology gaggle....
Where is the PROOF that people worldwide are dying or contracting illnesses because of GM crops since they were introduced 40 something years ago....
As you and I agreed on over 400 posts ago there will be no resolution to this debate, especially here in this thread, people will believe what they want, let the facts speak for themselves decades from now....
I continue to present new FACTS rather than just more conjecture and the same old BS....
No, you don't talk about American agriculture in every post. But you do talk a lot about American agri-tech companies with international subsidiaries, who use their American-subsidized revenues and industry clout to promote themselves to other countries where they may not enjoy quite as many of the same benefits. Where they can afford to under-cut themselves to gain marketshare because they have a protected revenue stream in their country of origin.
It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore that WidgetCo benefits from subsidization and governmental backing in it's primary market country and dismiss the huge market advantage that gives them internationally simply because they don't enjoy those benefits in another ancillary market country.
I discussed earlier that the primary marketshare for GMO food crops aren't the "world-feeders", and they aren't "open source" for the good of all (like Golden Rice). The majority of GMO crops on the market today come in just two varieties: bt-producing insect resistant and (company-specific) herbicide resistant.
Interestingly, in your TIME article:
Flavr Savr Tomatoes: no longer marketed, costs of production and competion from conventionally bred long-shelf-life hybrids made it unprofitable, so it was abandoned.
btCorn: Using bt for insect control is traditional and common use within the organic market... the only thing novel is that the plant produces the bacterial toxin itself rather than requiring spray or pellet.
Aberdeen Potato: never marketed. Amylose+Amylopectin potatoes are still in testing and haven't been approved for human consumption -- they are intended for industrial uses. Monsanto has abandoned it's seed potato projects.
Herbicide-resistant Canola: an oil crop, not a world feeder (although byproducts are used in livestock feed in the US and the oil used in bio-diesel)
Golden Rice: open source tech that cannot be reproduced by any other means. Arguably, the ONLY example of GMO in use so far that provides a substantially improved end-product that has direct health benefits to large populations of humans (Vitamin A).
Sahbhagi Dhan: this drought-resistant rice wasn't even GMO (transgenic)... it was a conventionally bred hybrid (and TIME even corrected themselves).
So, one was a conventionally-bred hybrid, one was outperformed/outcompeted by a conventionally-bred hybrids, one utilizes a conventional-use method which can be delivered alternate ways, one isn't a food crop, one isn't primarily a food crop, and only one provides novel health benefits for the masses.
If all the GMO crops on the market were like Golden Rice, I doubt there would be as much of an issue with opposition.
If most of the GMO crops on the market weren't food or feed, and were primarily for industrial materials like bio-fuel and bio-plastics, I doubt there would be as much of an issue with opposition.
If most of the GMO crops on the market provided a clear and significant improvement that couldn't be obtained by any other less-invasive method instead of taking a genetic short-cut to turn a buck, I doubt there would be as much of an issue opposition.
It's not so much that GMO opponents are a gaggle of anti-science and anti-tech neo-luddites... more that they adhere to the principles of scientific and technological prudence and responsible use.
I agree again... there doesn't seem to be a middle ground on this issue for most of the outspoken.
Personally, I am not opposed to true advances like Golden Rice. And I'm not anti-tech either... I just think that if you're going to engineer food, then you should engineer the actual food product that was never "alive" (i.e. synthesize "test tube meat" in a lab) rather than messing around with DNA & RNA of other living organisms.
A federal appeals court slapped down a quixotic legal campaign against Monsanto's biotech patents this week.
Organic farmers had gone to court to declare those patents invalid. The farmers, according to their lawyers, were "forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement" if their field became contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed.
Instead, the judges — echoing the ruling of a lower court — told the farmers that they were imagining a threat that doesn't exist.
"There is no justiciable case or controversy," they wrote. Monsanto says that it won't sue anyone for accidentally growing trace amounts of patented crops, and the organic farmers couldn't come up with any cases in which this had happened. Court To Monsanto: You Said You Won't Sue, So You Can't : The Salt : NPR
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
