When does global warming actually show up in real life?

[pepharytheworm]

Or we could stop being such whiny frightened luddites and eat GMOs.

Why? So people don't have a choice? Eat your food and that's it? Do you really think its all fear mongering? And people only make these choices based on fear? Your solution seems to be: be ignorant, don't question, just eat.

Yes, it is all fearmongoring, and most people make these choices based on fear. The rest base it on vague notions of principles because their lives are so easy they get bored. How many vegans do you see in sub-Saharan Africa?

A better question is how many sub-Saharan Africans live in an enviroment where they could even choose to be vegan? Their diet already consists of a lot less meat to plant based ratio then the average american.

If their path be by fear than your alternative truly is a path of ignorance. I advocate no one diet, but discoveries come from challenging your environment or by accident. Just accepting one truth and not searching for the truth on your own is to me a terrible way to live. Do you not believe we would be healthier as a species if we put a little more thought into what we consume? Informing ones self and paranoia are not the same thing.

[jp1]

Tell me more about this "no one" diet. I'm not happy with my current choice.

[MrPopo]

The GMO vs. non-GMO thing isn't really about what you're eating, though. It's people who think calorie-free water is worth more than regular water. A steak is a steak. An ear of corn is an ear of corn. You can spend extra money for a fancy label but you're just bullshitting yourself.

[Ack]

Or we could acknowledge that through technology, we will develop new methods of farming which may or may not let us vary between GMOs and "all natural" crops. Like this:

http://www.gereports.com/post/912502463 ... mer-builds

I hope this is tried in the United States, as it could completely change agriculture by requiring less land for more crops. The energy cost would be high, but I wonder if solar power could be utilized to mitigate a lot of that. High startup cost, definitely, though farming already has a high startup cost.

[Forlorn Drifter]

This is essentially hydroponics with specialized lights, correct?

With certain crops this would work good, but many of the ones focused on in the US wouldn't be near as efficient as this. Lettuce needs little soil and doesn't grow that tall, compared to corn, milo, soybeans, etc. I don't know how tall everything is stacked there, but ideally you could get at least two to three stories worth of plants per rack. Its a good idea, but extremely hard to implement on a per-farmer basis, that is an idea that would have to be based in large companies, which a lot of people oppose when it comes to agricultural things. The energy expenditure would also be flat out terrible.

@pephary
I'm still confused as to why a crop is GMO or not is important- it has no health effects, and increases yield. The main reason it hasn't become full spread in the industry is the fear around GMOs. I'm just not understanding why it would bother anyone or affect their consumption if there are no negative effects.

[pepharytheworm]

I'm still confused as to why a crop is GMO or not is important- it has no health effects, and increases yield. The main reason it hasn't become full spread in the industry is the fear around GMOs. I'm just not understanding why it would bother anyone or affect their consumption if there are no negative effects.

I said before read up on Round-up ready soybeans. I didn't want to lead you to a point and I want people to form their own opinions. That being said patented seeds can't be kept you must rebuy for every crop. Several have been modified to only yeild well if you use their pesticide and fertilizer. This keeps farmers having to continually pay the companies to even grow their food.
Can you not see somewhat of a problem if soybeans cross polinate until all thats left is GMO soybeans? A lot of countries opted out but some had to accept when their crops became contaminated because they wouldn't grow without the companies fertilizer and pesticides.
Also read about the effects of GM cotton in india, the good and the bad. Higher yields do not equal higher profits for farmers when using GMOs. The extra revenue goes back to the provider of the GMOs. When a normal crop fails that is awful but when a GMO crop fails it is even worse.

Vertical farming I feel will be a better future solution. All year produce, less land space, many crops in one place, cities able to feed themselves, less need for pesticides.

[Forlorn Drifter]

Ah, okay. I didn't realize that Monsanto had patents on their seed varieties. I'm against that considering that other companies have patents allowing for saving seeds and such.

However, I'm still for the use of GMO crops. The higher yields are flat out needed at this point, considering there's becoming less and less land for farmers, with a continually increasing population practically makes it a necessity unless we find something better. There's about 2.2 million "farms" in the US-however, that is based on census information for those with agricultural tax exemptions. It isn't the best way to decide the whole thing, considering how much the "farm" demographic dropped in Texas once they changed the tax exemption laws. The old style, which many states still use, only requires a pitiful amount of agriculture to count- someone with a decent sized back yard garden can get agricultural tax exemptions in some states.

[pepharytheworm]

The GMO vs. non-GMO thing isn't really about what you're eating, though. It's people who think calorie-free water is worth more than regular water. A steak is a steak. An ear of corn is an ear of corn. You can spend extra money for a fancy label but you're just bullshitting yourself.

64 countries already have GMO labels in place including Japan, most of Europe, Brazil, Australia and China. Most American companies already ship products over seas with these labels for said countries. Your view on people who would want informed consent is quite narrow, do you feel the same about those who wanted ingredients listed and nutritional info? There is a difference between people who do things to be trendy and those who generally try to inform themselves about the products they buy and how what they buy can affect their own body, other peoples lives, religious beliefs and the environment. Is it really hard to grasp that some people don't want to buy food that uses much more herbicide, produces its own insecticide and crossbreeds with normal crops? People in our country already buy food for an extra cost for a fancy label which is usually called a brand name. A good portion of those who care would also scoff at "calorie-free water is worth more than regular water". You also seem to lack knowledge on pricing. I almost exclusively buy organic or non-gmo products and my grocery bill has not gone up. There are plenty of alternative brands that are competitively priced such as Kroger's Simple Truth brand and farmer's markets are a great way to save too.

Bottom line does it effect you negatively in any way if this labeling comes into effect? Would you be upset if you bought a non-gmo product on accident?

[MrPopo]

Bottom line does it effect you negatively in any way if this labeling comes into effect? Would you be upset if you bought a non-gmo product on accident?

It's not the label itself that's the problem, it's the way people act on that information. We label ingredients, but in such a way that unless you truly care you don't bother looking to see if a particular ingredient is there. If GMO was labeled in the same way I wouldn't have a problem. But I don't like enabling people to make stupid choices; by that I mean choices that aren't well reasoned out. Concerns about locking farms in is a legitimate concern. Concerns because genetic modification sounds like a scary word is not a legitimate concern.

[pepharytheworm]

Bottom line does it effect you negatively in any way if this labeling comes into effect? Would you be upset if you bought a non-gmo product on accident?

If GMO was labeled in the same way I wouldn't have a problem.

Have you seen any of the proposed labeling? Or others countries labels? Most are doing it precisely like that. Measure 92 in Oregon going up for vote will require "genetically engineered" or "partially genetically engineered" on food products raw or packaged except alcohol and restaurants and any other such food as already exempt from food labeling. It will be non-obtrusive and contain no advisory. Companies can choose to mark it however they see fit as long as those words or GE/ Partial GE is listed on packaging. I feel labels such as Non-GMO are more misleading as it is labeled as a selling point much like your zero-calorie water analogy. Think of it like contains nitrates on alcohol.