I guess this is the best place to post this, although it could go in a few topics. Anyway, I was writing in a file I call "random thoughts" on my computer about ways to solve mankind’s problems and I came up with a theory. This theory seemed ok to me but I am no expert. So here is my idea. Genetically engineer a “sea bean” to have all nutrients a human needs. Therefore you could produce massive amounts of good tasting (like seaweed…not bad) food near coastlines. It would be high in every vitamin, mineral, protein, and fatty acid a human needs, and able to deliver the recommended daily allowances in a few servings. This could be mass farmed in oceans and scraped up by ships like tractors do to corn. It could be packaged and delivered to starving people around the world since it is complete in nutrients and extremely abundant due to it having a higher survival value than other seaweeds in the area. Also, it would not take up valuable real estate because it would grow in costal waters. Regular people could eat it as well; it would not be only a relief food. The only draw back is that you would want a lot of it to grow but not outside farming areas where it would adversely effect the environment. Perhaps you could fix this problem by making it dependant on some chemical not naturally found, yet would be abundant on land and able to be slowly released into the water at a controlled rate by man. What do you think?
Good idea. I HATE environMENTAL activists who burn down gm crop research sites, thus letting no research get done, eliminating the chance that they might be proved wrong, and that gm food is as harmless as normal food. As I said, good idea, we need some kind of abundant relief food. Which plant to use as the base genetics?
click the "sea bean" link up top... or this one to see what I was thinking for my base plant. but if you are engineering it that much I suppose you could use about any sea plant to do it.
Very good idea, but the greenies would be thrown into fits just bringing the idea near then, let along reading it out. I like the idea of a control substance, but of course the DNA transcription process (as we all know) is imperfect so one day a plant might mutate such that it can live without. Unlikely, I know, but when you think about how many of these plants might exist... Perhaps just using bacteria to produce our needs and applying the additives directly to regular food would be more efficient. The bacteria are unlikely to escape their tank, where the life conditions could be comlpetely different to the surrounding enviroment and their own needs are more basic. Surpless food could also be given to third w nations (or LEDC's Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) in exchange for labour.
<P> I am a strong advocate of GM foods and crops, but I get annoyed when I see people trying to suggest that they can be used to solve world hunger in any way. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We could end world hunger easily right now without any need for GM technology. Modern agriculture is more than capable of sustaining the world’s population. The problem isn’t with science, it’s with economies and politics. The problem lies with crippling Third World debt and the refusal of the World Bank and First World countries to absolve those debts. The problem lies with civil wars that have been ongoing for most of the 20th century. The problem lies with a lack of infrastructure. Haiti has just been devastated by a hurricane. Why? Because almost the entire island has been deforested which has resulted in lack of top-soil integrity and massive mud slides that have wiped out entire villages. They cut down trees because they are poor and there is no other way to earn money. Ditto goes for the Saharan region of northern Africa. Ditto goes for poor Brazilians in the Amazon. Genetically engineered “sea beans”, or any other GM crop or any other natural crop, is not going to solve these problems. What’s needed is a shift in political attitudes.<P>
But not tomorrow's population - by any means. In 50 years, mankind would benefit from the extra yields (See Scientific American: August 2004, p33) I should point out that the article refers to things like 'Marker-assisted breeding' (very cool), rather than GM specifically, although technically MAB is GM.
I do not like GM vegies (I think all vegies are GM in the USA). Real stuff (grown from Dutch seeds) are way better looking, better tasting. And more than that, in my experience, vegetables grown from non GM Dutch seeds give far better yield than GM modified crap sold in Wal-Marts.
Obviously, the goal and hence specific quality of the goods will vary with GM. But theoretically you should be able to produce better yields through GM, if you so wanted. It would not be in a tomatoes interest to grow to an enormous size. There will be an equilibrium between big enough to attract animals and small enough to be a burden on nutrients. With man stepping in with fertiliser etc, I see no reason why GM crops will not be superior in the ways we care about. Walmart vegies may have been grown in less-then-adequate enviroments, which is serious factor. The GM content will most likey be anti-pest. I would not compare goods unless you isolate all the variables.
GM Wal-Mart crap is not only anti-pest (which I doubt they are). For example, if "normal" cucumbers/squash may produce for >1 month. GM stuff wither after the first yield. One get ugly looking yellow remnants in the middle of July as though it's fall already + relatively puny yield. Normal vegetables produce much longer=larger, more widely spread in the time yield. Definitely, GM products were mainly made for the industrial farming, they do not suit gardeners well. One can not use seeds from GM crops for replanting = monopoly of corporations on the food. Secondly, why do you think GM food is a priory superior to the products of the normal selection? Unless one does not try to create unseen before monster, normal selection may create all things that GM can.
Tase GM modified California strawberry, it's unbelievably disgusting/near tasteless (except taste of the rubber) product. Poor Americans, most of them did not taste good strawberry in their life time. The other store vegetables do not taste much better. No wonder, almost everybody around here prefers stuffing barrels with meat.
its so funny, i can remember the american peaches i ate when i was flying to canada, they tasted like absolute shit!, they are loaded with many Gms, preservatives and dyes they arent even a fruit anymore. ill stick with the organic foods thanks
Please allow me to dispel a myth that seems to have cropped up in this thread. In the US, not all foods are GM foods. The foods you were eating may not have been the way you preferred them, but it does not automatically follow that they are GM foods. Almost all of the corn in the US -is- GM, but most of our other crops are just bred that way. Y'all need to remember that in the US and other places, selective breeding of animals and plants has been going on for quite a while. As for sticking with organic foods...feel free. The only problem I have with organic foods is the lack of regulation on them and the higher incidence of e. coli. People automatically assume that because something says organic, it is good for you. It doesn't allways follow that way. That's my quick answer. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Most of the protections to prevent GM genetics from contaminating wild species have failed. That in mind, I have stated my issue with GM crops before, and I will again. In nature, most mutations do not help the individual, and over time, those changes are lost as they harm the individual's ability to reproduce. Many times, these genes may appear innocuous or even beneficial at first, but may have long-term side effects which are not obvious. When dealing with GM crops, we are making large-scale changes to the genetic code of plants, without allowing them the time to show and weed out the unforseen problems. This lack of time invites great fragility to the new species; How do you know that by GM'ing this sea bean, it doesn't become extra succeptable to a certain type of bacteria which will only evolve into existance 50 years from now? What if by introducing this bean, you grow something so successfull that it kills off native species, and you end up with no species in the area that can protect itself from this bacteria? Having great amounts of bio-diversity form the outset is the best way to prevent ecological devistation due to biological factors, and modern farming methods do not promote bio-diversity. Add a plethora of GM-introduced genetic weaknesses, and you have a possible recipe for disaster. This doesn't even get into the dangers of patenting genomes, and the effects that has on the poorer class. GM in no way will help solve world hunger, and no one is giving GM crops away to the poor. Nature gives her species away for free. How are you going to compete with that? This planet is one of limited reasources. We can only stretch the boundries so far.
GM crops could help the 3rd world (not that there's any point in doing so, other than taking pity on some animals that are the same species by chance). With regard to pesticide resistant crop - where do you find pesticides? - In a farm - you're not going to have a super weed, because it has no advantage outside of the farm enviroment. Because artificial selection / GM shapes plants in our interest, not the plants. Natural selection will have made the plant very good at reproducing, but not necessarily good by out requirements - i.e. size and taste of fruit. This terrible American produce you speak of, although I can't comment directly having tried none, may be a result of cheap production techniques. I very much doubt a multi million company would GM up some crop if the only result was to make it nasty! All cheap food is pretty lame. Asda (Brit supermarket, now walmart owned) sells the cheapest of cheap, and it's crap - but for many many other reasons. We don't know that the plants we have already are not susceptable to future viruses etc. The plants concerns are not important. Only our output - our introduced changes may reduce it's survival in a non-atificial envrioment, but could lead to better produce in a controlled enviorment. This is difficult, but should not be opaque to analysis. Crop can be killed and checked thoroughly for dangerous proteins. These sort of rigorous tests are mandatory.
In the USA, there are few if any specialized vegetable/fruit stores in the large cities. Small and medium cities usually have none. Same shit is sold both in the "expensive" grocery stores and in the "cheap" Wal-Marts; but for the different price of course. Farmer markets are almost dead too. Sure, there are few "farmer" markets around. Too bad that they sell mostly Mexican, etc. produce + droplets of the locally grown one. If one want to eat something good tasting, one should grow it or live near vegetable/fruit farms (with u-pick). There is no other way around. I think the taste is more related to the transportation than to growing, GM modification, etc. Few Organic vegies sold in stores have quite lousy taste too. USA is too specialized agriculture wise. Michigan, Washington states are specialized in apples, for example. I haven't seen an apple orchad in Tennesse yet. Fruits/Vegetables are transported thousands miles to consumers; too frequently, they come from foreign lands. USA is losing the apple market to the South America. Poor Mi orchards. Recently, I've seen green onions grown in Belgium! in the local Wal-Mart. It's the top of absurd. Long transportation distances require picking up semi-ripe fruits, use of preservatives, etc. = shitty taste (not to speak of the loss of vitamins). "Fortunately", gradual rise in the oil prices will correct the transportation insanity. Soon, vegetables will be either grown locally or they will not be consumed at allPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Global economy may come back to senses.
dixonmassey, you obvoiously have no idea what your talking about. In the US, i can go to shop 'n' bag and buy cheep food that tastes like shit, or i can go to the wholefood's guinardi's and zagara's and buy expensive food that tastes incredible.
Well, I do not know where you live. But somewhow I doubt that whole..... shit is tasting much better that Wal Mart one. They taste just about the same but they are priced differently. Everything is in your mind.
BEWARE WHERE IT SAYS "MAN-MADE": All i point out is, SEE THE PATTERN!....On our news recently has been the fact that people using manmade products have toxic chemicals in their bodies several average families have been testd and found to have a host of toxic chemicals in their bodies. form the older members of the family to the youngest these toxins come from household decor, carpets, cleaning products we use round the home, non-stick pans, chemicals from the food, computeres, computer games, TVS...etc etc Now, i suppose this is the price we are HAVING to pay for modern life, but deep down i am not happy about it. ! we get born into this crap, so whatchagonna do well, i have gottn rid of the non-stick pan i had.....plus i eat organic foods. i will start being more are of what i am buying, but relevant for this thread my warning is....so BEWARE of this GM shit. it is man-made. it is the same mindset men with their god (($profit$) trying to get you to buy THEIR crap, and fallin over backwrs tellin you it is benign. well, checkout the above, and beware. i will not touch it with a fukin bargepole.
God almighty. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So you think that nature cannot produce toxic deadly things all by itself? Are you aware that there have been numerous examples of foods that have <B>naturally</B> acquired dangerous toxins through <B>natural</B> breeding and <B>natural</B> mutations? A molecule is a molecule is a molecule. Man-made versus natural is irrelevant. You can spin your <I>evil man-made anti-GM</I> nonsense all you like, but you won't change that. Hmmm, obviously you will not touch education with a bargepole either. <img src="http://www.uul.com.au/images/ostrich.gif"><P>
I think that GM foods are in their infancy, given time, I think they will be better in nearly every way to their "natural" counterparts. it is simple economic, if one vegetable tastes better than the one next to it consumers will figure this out over time. thus when the better taste becomes more in demand, and as GM techniques improve, you will see GM foods beating out "natural" in every category.
