# Will genetically engineered food feed the hungry?

## Recommended Posts

Would appreciate any opinions

Thanks

##### Share on other sites

No, it's not the answer to the worlds ills. It is part of the continued development of selective breeding techniques that make up part of the modernisation of agriculture. Poor countries are typically a long way behind rich countries in modernisation, and adopting genetically engineered strains won't make up for all the other discrepencies.

##### Share on other sites

There must be serious advantages though, as I know that farmers in India risk using GM strains despite them being illegal there.

##### Share on other sites

No amount of genetic engineering will ever see that the hungry get feed.

There's enough land on this planet to see that every man, woman, and child gets more than enough to eat right now. The problem lies with distrabution.

As a nation (the USA) spends most of our ariable land raising food for cattle. While cattle itself can be a source of food, this process is rather inefficent. If that land was instead invested in some direct food production, there would lots of excess food for export.

There's just more money in rasing cattle than exporting food to the hungry. Again, it's a question of economics.

##### Share on other sites
No amount of genetic engineering will ever see that the hungry get feed.

There's enough land on this planet to see that every man' date=' woman, and child gets more than enough to eat right now. The problem lies with distrabution.

As a nation (the USA) spends most of our ariable land raising food for cattle. While cattle itself can be a source of food, this process is rather inefficent. If that land was instead invested in some direct food production, there would lots of excess food for export.

There's just more money in rasing cattle than exporting food to the hungry. Again, it's a question of economics.[/quote']

I agree that it is about distribution, as that is a much more expensive endeavor than one would assume. I think it goes back to the saying, "give a man a fish..." because even if we gave the man genetically enhanced fish, wouldn't it be more prudent to teach the man to enginner his own fish? Problem is, for one to do that, he must be educated, and education is a rarer commodity to the starving people than is food.

So basically, there are two problems--enormous distribution expenses and lack of education for self-enabled food production--both which keeps the people starving.

##### Share on other sites

If you think about, distrabution is a big part of many problems. With raising gas prices, we should expect to see the price of everything increasing.

##### Share on other sites

I see this issue as an interesting example of one of the areas in which scientific reasoning going out the window in favor of political correctness and far-left ideology. In a very real sense, we've been "genetically engineering" food for 10,000-30,000 years (in the form of selective breeding), and we're doing just fine. We *certainly* wouldn't be able to feed everyone alive today without it. According to Penn & Teller's show on this last year, we'd come up a couple billion people short.

But I've heard some pretty good arguments that say we need to be more careful about certain areas, and a few objective arguments in favor of slowing down a bit. These arguments do carry some weight with me.

##### Share on other sites
There must be serious advantages though, as I know that farmers in India risk using GM strains despite them being illegal there.

Yes, and it's a quick change that can yield immediate benefits. But the differences pale in comparison to a general industrialisation of agriculture. We often have a small percentage, like 5%, producing our food. In poor undeveloped countries it is often more like 50%. That's a massive difference in efficiency. The other thing is that these large industrial farms drive the develoment of sophisticated infrastructure. They need to get their food out to people far and wide because they produce so much.

The world is not in dire need of resources, rather, it's elite people using up resources. I find it disgusting and extremely oppressive the incredible fortunes some select "elite" people have. It is truly about distribution, and it'd be nice if a the $40,000,000,000 dollars people like Bill Gates have would be used to help make the world a fairer place. It's not even so much to do with education, either...it's a lot to do with the government and the overall spirit of people. A lot of people are simply selfish and refuse to work together...and, a lot of people just love to rake in the$$. Likewise, it's hard for people to cooperate, work together, and produce (which would help distribution) if people keep treating their selves like overfed kings, chopping someone's fingers off just for stealing a worthless rock of diamond from their million dollar limosine. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Yes, and it's a quick change that can yield immediate benefits. But the differences pale in comparison to a general industrialisation of agriculture. We often have a small percentage, like 5%, producing our food. In poor undeveloped countries it is often more like 50%. That's a massive difference in efficiency. The other thing is that these large industrial farms drive the develoment of sophisticated infrastructure. They need[/i'] to get their food out to people far and wide because they produce so much. Well yes, there is that. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites The world is not in dire need of resources, rather, it's elite people using up resources. I find it disgusting and extremely oppressive the incredible fortunes some select "elite" people have. It is truly about distribution, and it'd be nice if a the$40,000,000,000 dollars people like Bill Gates have would be used to help make the world a fairer place.

You should probably have picked a better example, seeing as the rank of Knight Commander of the British Empire was recently conferred on Gates by Queen Elizabeth II in recognition of his outlandishly immense contributions to alleviating human suffering.

##### Share on other sites

Not to mention the fact that the money was created more or less out of thin air. It wouldn't exist if those entrepreneurs and investors hadn't created it. Had Bill Gates become an aid worker instead of creating Microsoft, you'd have a few people a little better off, and a lot more people much worse off. And that's not even counting his philanthropy.

The phrase "to make money" doesn't mean earning. It means creating.

##### Share on other sites

Fine fine, so Bill Gates isn't a good example. I agree his computer technology is a productive resource. However, I'd be better off not keeping up-to-date with the fortunes of others.

##### Share on other sites
find it disgusting and extremely oppressive the incredible fortunes some select "elite" people have. It is truly about distribution, and it'd be nice if a the \$40,000,000,000 dollars people like Bill Gates have would be used to help make the world a fairer place.

You've never heard of the concept of 'wealth creation'?

Economics is not a zero sum game.

##### Share on other sites
Fine fine, so Bill Gates isn't a good example. I agree his computer technology is a productive resource. However, I'd be better off not keeping up-to-date with the fortunes of others.

Actually that's beside the point. Delete "Microsoft" and insert "ExxonMobile" or "WallMart" if you like.

Just my two bits worth, of course.

##### Share on other sites

Would appreciate any opinions

Thanks [/quote']Yes, I'm in favor of genetically engineering food, plants in particular.

##### Share on other sites
You've never heard of the concept of 'wealth creation'?

Heard of, yes. Truly understand, no. Have any good URLs that explain it so that someone who's never taken any economics can understand?

Mokele

##### Share on other sites

Genetically enhanced food is available now but the world's population won't use it. See grain sales to Africa.

##### Share on other sites
Genetically enhanced food is available now but the world's population won't use it. See grain sales to Africa.

GMO crops have been rejected due to GM alarmists clamoring about potential dangers that don't really exist

##### Share on other sites

History have shown us some death which held genetically modified foods responsible.

http://www.cqs.com/50harm.htm

##### Share on other sites

Do you have *real* science site to back up those claims?

##### Share on other sites

Why does it have to be a science site?

"Richard Lacey: Professor of Food Safety, Leeds University"

You don't trust him?

##### Share on other sites
Why does it have to be a science site?

Because this is a science forum?

You don't trust him?

No, I don't. Show me something from someone with a degree in genetics and population ecology, who actually understands things.

--------

This shouldn't be taken as a knee-jerk rejection of a view (I'm actually conflicted on the subject and can see both sides), but of the crappy source.

##### Share on other sites
Why does it have to be a science site?

Because when you have a peer reviewed scientific study, it means that a group of experts in a field assert the validity of the study, the evidence it presents, and the methodology involved.

Otherwise, you have the opinion of one person, and one person, regardless of their credentials, can say whatever the hell they want to say. Without peer review you have no idea if the information being presented to you is remotely valid.

"Richard Lacey: Professor of Food Safety, Leeds University"

You don't trust him?

Well, I don't know about Britain, and from some cursory reading on this guy it sounds like the British have been sloppy about a number of things. But in America, GMO crops are the most regulated plants on the face of the earth.

GMO crops have to meet three sets of independent guidelines from three different government organizations: The EPA (who ensures their safety as an environmental agent), the USDA (who ensures their safety as a crop), and the FDA (who ensures their safety as a food).

What do you wish to argue regarding GMO crops? Do you wish to argue that it is impossible for GMO crops to be engineered, produced, and utilized safely? If so, why?

##### Share on other sites

As long as EPA, USDA, and FDA evaluate those GM crops, then it's fine to release it to the environment.

I'm not saying it's impossible. It's possible as long as they are varified.

I'm also pointing out that the effects of unvarified GM crops are real.

Do you have *real* science site to back up those claims?[/Quote]

No.

## Create an account

Register a new account