tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post6728487259182191676..comments2023-10-05T02:54:20.637-07:00Comments on Green Economy : Doubts about the promised Bounty of GMOAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00826733025674909285noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-76491643872360673162016-11-14T12:06:01.209-08:002016-11-14T12:06:01.209-08:00To say that no genetically modified organism will ...To say that no genetically modified organism will serve as a silver bullet to all problems is a testament to the truth of this article. These modifications do not solve every problem. Instead, farmers must be given access to subsidies, utilize them, test the seeds to see if they are successful in their advertised purposes, and wait a while before profit yields are experienced. Whereas a normal business investment of new farm equipment, for instance, can be felt almost immediately as to their effectiveness, GMOs take time in order to be truly appreciated.<br />The problems experienced by farmers where neighboring farms are utilizing old and dated seeds that end up poisoning their own is a tragedy. In this case, a farmer is missing on their profit from the season and the government ought to step in and buy their crops. A penalty should be given to the neighboring farm and systems put in place in order to prevent such serious incidents as these.<br />GMOs have a long way to come. They have never been and never will be perfect silver bullets. It is how we utilize them that we can experience agricultural benefits: where a doctor's medicine must be taken even after symptoms disappear, these GMO seeds must be utilized exactly as they are prescribed by distributing entities. This means returning or otherwise recouping costs from dated and incorrect products.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18199625304739596484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-54829429256110363702016-11-12T20:21:23.343-08:002016-11-12T20:21:23.343-08:00After reading this article I am thoroughly confuse...After reading this article I am thoroughly confused. If GMOs do not in fact actually increase the crop yield and/or reduce the use of pesticides. Then, what is the point? Especially since no one knows the long term effects that these food have on the human body. So far the research is showing that GMOs is basically pointless. How is it that Western Europe is thriving and reducing the use of pesticides while the US and Canada which seems to believe in the promise of GMOs isn't excelling? It really seems to me that the US and Canada is taking a huge risk and that these companies are selling these farmers a dream that isn't coming to reality. Although the "fears about the harmful effects of eating G.M. foods have proved to be largely without scientific basis" many people are concerned with the unknown and potential health risk. It really seems like companies have not developed the GMO that they have promised. Although the product may have some added benefit to farmers it really seems that we may be moving in the wrong direction or wasting resources in something that may never deliver. Fleur Louisynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-16638731094665946432016-11-12T19:06:25.728-08:002016-11-12T19:06:25.728-08:00The use of GMO's has been widely debated over ...The use of GMO's has been widely debated over the years. I found this article very interesting to read because it took a different stance than the previous article we read on GMO's. The main two reasons to genetically modify products are to increase crop yields and reduce the need for pesticides. Ideally, these are both great uses, but it doesn't always work that way. Decades ago, when the US and Canada became very interested in the use and regulation of GMO's, Europe decided to go the opposite direction. Science thanks them for making that decision because now we can compare the results between North America and Western Europe. Recent studies compared plant yields (per acre) in North America (US and Canada) with plant yields in Western Europe (France and Germany). The results showed that total yields weren't higher in North America than in Western Europe. Studies also showed that compared to years ago in the US, before the use of GMO's, the plant yields were not significantly less. If the positive possibilities from the use of GMO's are not happening, then why use them at all? It is clear that the potential health effects outweigh the positive effects at the moment. In the near future, I see the harvesting of GMO's becoming more standardized and popularized, once all of the negative side effects are figured out. Once the potential negative health effects are eliminated, it couldn't hurt to use GMO's. Even if yields remain the same, less pesticides would still be necessary, making it more healthy for consumption. For the moment, I think that the US needs to follow the lead of European countries such as France (when it comes to the use of GMO's). Joseph Santininoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-16446380534423399652016-11-11T20:37:40.596-08:002016-11-11T20:37:40.596-08:00As the article says, Western Europe does not use G...As the article says, Western Europe does not use GMOs and have rejected the use unlike America. The leading agricultural countries of non GMO areas being France and Germany, I can relate and have previous knowledge of agriculture in Western Europe, specially France, as a French citizen, I grew up in France and know how people feel about GMOs. One way to look at the difference of France's agriculture to America's is if we look at our supermarkets. In France, we will nearly never see any tag that labels a food for being organic of GMO free, we also do not have very expensive, huge organic supermarkets such as Whole Foods. Both those ideas seem a little ridiculous. I did not grow up looking at the labels of foods or ever wondered what kind of chemicals I have in my vegetables. Since I moved to America, I started becoming conscious of what I am buying and made a habit of looking at each label. Even though the article says that the dangers of GMOs have not been fully and scientifically proven, the increasing use of herbicides (21%) can show us that any chemical that has been added to plants, that was not there naturally, must have its negative effects. The view of French people, generally, are very much against GMOs and we do not regret our decision on rejecting GMOs until this day. If there were to ever be GMOs used by farmers in France, the public would be outrages. Although I doubt every single food being 100% natural in France, I can say with confidence that the use of chemicals in foods, is far less than in America. (and I hope for it to stay that way.)Kenan Saraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-15449093053919973012016-11-11T20:31:47.666-08:002016-11-11T20:31:47.666-08:00To be quite honestl, I personally do not see a pro...To be quite honestl, I personally do not see a pro or a positive advantage of using GMO seeds in agriculture. Although science has proved to us that yes the use of GMO seeds created bountiful crop yields and makes it easier to take care of the crop, but what many producers of GMO crops have failed to do is inform the human population about hte potential side effects of GMO's. They might be efficient when creating great and sustainable crop but they are not so great when it comes to the human health. A study, ofcourse not published in the United States, actually has been retracted by Monsanto, by dr. Serallini, a French doctor who studied the impact of GMO's on mice has shown that the consumption of GMO's is linked to a number of various diseases such as thyroid problems, digestive problems and also cancers. There is a reason why Western Europe and Russia has such a firm standing against GMO's, and that is exactly the reason, health impacts of GMO's. When using GMO seeds, the seeds have been genetically engineered to withstand roundup and various insect repellents. Over the years, the insects and weeds have adapted to the roundup and repellents and have been immune to such, causing more and more chemicals to be doused on our crops that doesn't simply wash away when washed with water. The protein found in the Bt corn, isn't digested by human bodies, creating what is known as Celiac disease. THere is just so many negatives and cons about GMO'S! Not to mention, growing food organically and without repellents and GMO's and other of that fancy stuff creates and generates the same exact yields as the crop grown using GMO. I think America should open their eyes, and not be so for profit but for once for their citizens health. Post By CAN KARAKO Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13878637456937717635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-25008939585049171882016-11-11T20:17:29.001-08:002016-11-11T20:17:29.001-08:00Before we discussed the use GMOs at all in this cl...Before we discussed the use GMOs at all in this class, I always felt against the use of them. After reading and discussing the pros and cons of GMOs in the previous week, I could actually begin to see the positive sides to them, such as making crop more resistant and most importantly, being environmentally friendly. With the use of GMOs, we are able to save time, water, land and machinery when it comes to agriculture. Contrasting this statement, in this text, we can see that in the GMO areas like the US and Canada, and non GMO areas like Western Europe, there are not a lot of advantages when looked at the results of using GMOs and not using GMOs in agriculture. One statement in the text that made me very interested was " genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides. " If so, why does the U.S and Canada continue using GMOs? If the US and Canada use GMOs and still there is no reduction in pesticides or even an increase in herbicides, then what is the purpose of still using GMOs? <br /><br />I believe that when Europe rejected the use of GMOs 2 decades ago, the US and Canada should have done the same. This topic really is a controversial topic and needs further research to come up with the best solution for both the US and Canada. Naz Ayalpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-50033115948529598112016-11-11T15:08:39.900-08:002016-11-11T15:08:39.900-08:00It is obvious that GM crop is a controversial issu...It is obvious that GM crop is a controversial issue. For the last article, we know the GMO's advantages and disadvantages. However, this article shows the doubts of the GMO's advantages. The one of advantages is that GMO can increase the yield of crops. However, this article disagrees with this view by comparing GMO areas and non-GMO areas. US and Canada are GMO areas and Europe is non-GMO area. The US and Canada's yield of crops do not higher than Europe, as the article state:"An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre —when measured against Western Europe." This shows that GMO cannot increase the yield.<br /><br />The GMO not only cannot increase the production of crops, but also increase the use of pesticides. The GMO areas such as US decrease the use of toxins to kill the insects, but they increase the use of herbicides by 21 percent. However, non-GMO areas like France decrease the use of insecticides and herbicides separately by 65 percent and 36 percent. These statistics are obvious to claim the argument for the pros of GMO. If genetically modified crops don't have any advantages, why GMO areas still use genetically modified crops? This shows that GMO is a controversial issue again. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08280098815313270988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-61048647573519916752016-11-11T13:50:27.482-08:002016-11-11T13:50:27.482-08:00In our previous discussion we looked over the pros...In our previous discussion we looked over the pros and cons of GMOs. Most of the cons had not been sufficiently researched and tested, which makes people doubt their claims. Instead of focusing on the pros and cons of ingesting GMOs, this article talks about how genetic modification has not lived up to its original purpose, which was to produce accelerated increases in crop yields and reduce our need for pesticides. The two main types of genetically modified crops were either resistant to herbicides or resistant to some insects. The studies mentioned in this article show the difference between countries, particularly the United States compared with Western European countries, that use genetic modification and those that don’t. They have come to find that using genetic modification has not led to any advantage in terms of crop production. France and Germany have continued to maintain the lead over Canada’s crop yields, despite having rejected genetic modifications. Although genetic modification has not led to increased crop yields it has, however, lead to a dramatic increase in the use of pesticides. Instead of using toxins to kills insects and fungi, we now spray herbicides in higher volumes. Although, in France, which does not support or use genetic modification, their use of insecticides and fungicides has decreased by 65% and their herbicide use has decreased by 36%. Weed resistance in crops are the main reason for this increase in herbicides. People continue to use herbicides because they know their genetically modified seed will prevent them from being affected. We have still failed to find conclusive evidence that the use of these chemicals can negatively affect us. It seems like less of a priority in this article and hasn’t really been investigated extensively. Genetic modification is also about taking the best characteristics of other plants that are needed, such as plants that stand up well. Mr. Stone believes greater yield production will result by breeding plants to bring out desirable traits. The use of genetically modified seeds also has the advantage of being much cheaper than regular seeds. I can see why some people are for genetic modification and why others are not. There is not enough research on genetic modification and its repercussions on people as well as other plants and our environment. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892402109117294432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-51416417540665490672016-11-11T07:48:58.722-08:002016-11-11T07:48:58.722-08:00GMO’s have always been a highly debatable and cont...GMO’s have always been a highly debatable and controversial topic. I personally do not agree with the use of them and think they should not be so widely used. We are meant to eat natural organic food. Not food that is enhanced with all kinds of unnatural artificial chemicals. I liked the information the blog had comparing the use of GMO’s in Canada and the U.S. to Western Europe. Western Europe does not use genetically modified crops like Canada and the U.S. Results showed that Canada and the U.S. had no advantage in crop yields, suggesting that GMO’s do not have a significant impact on crop yield. Another piece of information I found interesting was the statistics on the use of pesticides, herbicides, and other toxins used on crops. Europe has been decreasing their overall use of these harmful chemicals. While the United States has cut back on the use of many chemicals, they have increased their use of herbicides. I do not agree with the use of GMO’s.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16697413446415909049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-71603537503952891762016-11-10T07:04:43.064-08:002016-11-10T07:04:43.064-08:00I have never been a fan of GMOs and this article f...I have never been a fan of GMOs and this article further discredits the usage of such modifications. Economics aside, our bodies are intended to eat ingredients that grow naturally, be it plant or animal. A chicken breast or a strawberry is supposed to be just that, not a chicken breast treated with growth hormone or a strawberry containing 6 different chemicals to 'protect the harvest'. I am a firm believer in eating only foods whos ingredients you can see, read, and pronounce. GMOs also bring up the issue of transparency in our society. It is absurd that when you buy 'blueberries' you are buying blueberries laced with some list of chemicals, unless otherwise stated as organic. Perhaps I'd be able to look passed these facts if GMOs were living up to their promise. The study by NYT makes it evident that the use of GMOs is essentially useless and should be discontinued in the US. Clearly the answer to sustainable agriculture is not chemical additives. The benefits of GMOs are not apparent in any way, beside the percentage of GDP associated with the production and distribution of these chemicals that essentially benefit the chemists and polluters (Monsanto). GMOs are clearly not benefiting society and the use should be ceased. It is disappointing that this is not a more pressing matter in society.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14493470447064776331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-53954721893404276802016-11-09T10:44:43.382-08:002016-11-09T10:44:43.382-08:00I think at this point, GMO's are a topic that ...I think at this point, GMO's are a topic that will be seen as controversial for a while. Some claim there is evidence that GMO's are good for the planet and the economy, and some claim the opposite. We previously compared the pros and cons of GMO's themselves, but this article goes in depth about the economics of GMO's as a whole.<br /><br />Something I found interesting was the comparison between GMO areas and non-GMO areas, specifically the US / Canada vs. Europe. The article states "United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre —when measured against Western Europe . . . 'there was little evidence' that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops." The argument that GMO's increase the yield of crops seems to fall flat here, and that was a large argument when we talked about the pros of GMO's. <br /><br />I also found it interesting that the use of pesticides and other chemicals has dramatically fallen in European countries (specifically France), where GMO's don't exist, yet the United States has increased their use of these things to produce GMO's. If GMO's don't increase crop yield, then what is the advantage of them that can counteract this increased use of chemicals and justify why it is okay? Megan Sommerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575550830285629115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5180734724738595937.post-17325059591542262642016-11-04T13:57:31.084-07:002016-11-04T13:57:31.084-07:00Then comparison between GM crops and naturally gro...Then comparison between GM crops and naturally grown crops has always been an issue of discussion. The GM crops were made to be able to resist more pesticides and other chemicals to protect plants from insects or animals and to make a growth in crop yields, but after the study of The New York Times, it is been proven that Genetically Modified crops have not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides, meaning that GM crops are not a very good solution. By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides, but as shown in the results of the studies, technology has fallen short of the promised.<br />We can observe that in other countries like France or Germany, that rejected the use of GM crops, are still ahead in the production of them, the are more productive and more efficient using natural grown crops. Not only with productivity, but also with he pesticide usage, United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides. So the United States not only use GM crops but also use more pesticides. They thought that with genetically modified crops, they would be able to lower pesticides and have better products, but after the studies made by NYT, it is shown that even with GM crops, the usage of pesticides has increased in contrast with naturally grown crops, where pesticides usage has decreased. <br />In my opinion, I feel like Western Europe did a good choice not choosing to grow GM crop yields and just keep it the way they were, because now the US is realizing that using genetically modified crops was not the best solution. They thought they could lower the usage of pesticides and increase the crop yields in order to help with the world hunger and instead of that, they are falling backwards and not helping at all.<br />That is my thought about it, but I think that the way to go is always the traditional way in agriculture, as the more products we try to put in the vegetables to last and grow faster, the more those crops and vegetables are modified, and in the end, it keeps being worst.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01736596177017858207noreply@blogger.com