environment

GMO skeptics still distrust big agriculture's climate pitch

7 Comments
By Juliette MICHEL

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

7 Comments
Login to comment

Having companies with a proven track record of coercion like monsanto et all is a great concern and not comforting for the future of crops in the world

6 ( +6 / -0 )

But as more severe weather creates hostile growing conditions for conventional seeds, companies such as Bayer/Monsanto, Corteva and Syngenta are promoting GMOs as more efficient.

The problem is not that genetic engineering is not more efficient than crossbreeding, that is undeniable, the problem is that the purpose is not sustainable nor ecologically sound. Making a priority of developing crops that are more profitable instead of those that are better for both humans and the environment makes sense for the companies, but not for those trying to get sustainable agriculture that have less ecological costs.

One solution is to make an international effort where countries contribute to a common fund so money can be "thrown away" to develop GMOs that don't depend on use of herbicides and pesticides to be better, these would not make a profit for the developers, but would be immensely beneficial for everybody as it becomes easier to produce food for more people in less space, and with less pollution to the environment. Obviously without forgetting the rest of the necessary measures mentioned to make agriculture sustainable.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

In a perfect world, corporations could be trusted to do only that which is good for humanity and the world. We do not live in a perfect world, and corporations do not deserve our blind trust.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Why would anyone still trust large corporations? Back-to-basics regenerative agriculture is a far more workable solution and is more accessible to small farmers... which is why it's never discussed

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The problem is not that genetic engineering is not more efficient than crossbreeding, that is undeniable, the problem is that the purpose is not sustainable nor ecologically sound. 

No, not according to scientific data, the experts, and the article.

One solution is to make an international effort where countries contribute to a common fund so money can be "thrown away" to develop GMOs that don't depend on use of herbicides and pesticides to be better,

Oh definitely yes. This is a solution. One of the many solutions out there that might resolve the problem. At the same time, it is not a well-thought out solution, and will never be adopted and won't even be considered by the experts who handle these matters.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Back-to-basics regenerative agriculture is a far more workable solution and is more accessible to small farmers... which is why it's never discussed

Unless everyone wants to become small farmers you are not going to feed nations as densely populated as China, the US or most European nations that way. China has to import massive amounts of soy, wheat, corn, chicken and pork to feed its population. There have never been independent small farmers in all of China's history. They were either peasants under a feudal system or collectivized farms under communism. The kind of independent small farmer who owns their land has never existed in China and as long as the CCP is in power is never going to happen in the near future.

Globally, agricultural output per acre has more than doubled over the past 70 years due to scientific breeding of crops and improved farming techniques. This has saved the world from widespread famine.

What could be part of a solution that doesn't require GMO crops is something called indoor vertical farming. Farming done in buildings that are built and operated as clean rooms. No germs, no pests so no need for herbicides and pesticides. All water, including moisture in the air, is recycled. Daytime power can be from solar panels. Farms like this can be located in cities to minimize transportation of products to the end users, reducing energy use and pollution. Output per acre can be over 70 times greater than possible with conventional farming. Pretty much all vegetable crops and some fruits can be grown this way. I'm not sure about grains.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No, not according to scientific data, the experts, and the article.

Where exactly? making baseless appeal to authority is not an argument, is just an excuse you like to use to pretend your personal opinion comes from the mouth of the experts, even when that is not true.

At the same time, it is not a well-thought out solution

Because you say so? that only means you don't like it so you make again a baseless claim and try to impose it without even arguing for it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites