I'm doing a report for a class on the benefits of genetically modified (GM) foods, and I was curious to know what other people here thought of the issue. I personally think it's a science that has great potential. Creating crops that can grow in harsh climates to produce more food for famine-stricken nations, plus current work in developing fruits and vegetables that are more vitamin rich and could stimulate antibody production, clearly present a boon for humanity.

I see what you're saying --- but I don't like to mess w/my food. kwim?

Well, you don't have to eat GM crops if you don't want to. The main reason I support the practice is that it can increase the amount of food production in famine-stricken areas. Modify grains, fruits and vegetables to show a greater resistance to harsh temperatures and poor soil conditions, and you've got a surplus in nations where people struggle to find enough food to survive.

I say ok, but there needs to be some kind of testing to make sure there are no long-term effects. It's all well and good to feed these people, but if alot children start being born with a 3rd arm or something, there are going to be problems.

April, I heard that argument before from a bunch of hippies who think they know what's best for everyone. These crops are tested. There are a few problems, admittedly, but the benefits outweigh the risk. And many of these long-term or hypothetical scenarios that the anti GM crowd tosses up aren't rooted in logic.

what are the "few" problems that you mentioned?

And I'm not saying I know what's best for everybody, but if we're going to help these people by feeding them, it doesn't do anyone a damn bit of good if we're harming them in the process. Just because they're poor doesn't mean they want to eat crap that's going to hurt them.

Man, just go organic. A little cow or horse shit, and a bit of help from Mother Nature takes care of business.

Though coffee grounds do seem to perk up the house plants.

I think I made caffeine junkies out of them though.

Jim, April, Rob, The Manufacturers of America estimate 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient. 2006, 89% soybeans, 83% of cotton, and 61% were GM products!!!

I think we are dealing with scary stuff. Science does not always understand what can happen in the future. Think about the phalidimy babies. I think I have heard that some plant will kill Monach butterflies.

In India there is a real problem with farmers going in debt to buy GMO. seeds and then the seeds are not a success and the farmer commits suicide. This has happened many times.

unrbug:

I think we are dealing with scary stuff. Science does not always understand what can happen in the future. Think about the phalidimy babies. I think I have heard that some plant will kill Monach butterflies.

In India there is a real problem with farmers going in debt to buy GMO. seeds and then the seeds are not a success and the farmer commits suicide. This has happened many times.

I think you mean "thalidomide" une-retard.

Regarding your story of the poor Indian farmers, I think you're spouting more bullshit. Is there any proof to back your claim?

DocBill:

Jim, April, Rob, The Manufacturers of America estimate 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient. 2006, 89% soybeans, 83% of cotton, and 61% were GM products!!!

The world's population is growing substantially, Dr.Bill. We need to find new agricultural techniques to provide for these people.

Norman Borlaug, one of the pioneers in agricultural science, said that if we farmed using only organic methods, as so many opposed to GMOs argue is the "right" way to do so, we'd only be able to produce enough food for 2/3 of the worlds population. I don't think letting more than two billion people starve to death because of some unfounded fears is rational.

Your point is valid, but the primary focus here should be on gradually reducing the world's population.

Genetically altered food may be an unfortunate necessity at this point in time, but it should not be seriously considered as a long-term solution.

The numbers have to come down, and the only way to do that is with birth control and an awareness of the fact that we have become too numerous to sustain ourselves as a species, and need to gradually remedy the situation.

Note that I did not mention any other form of control here other than abstaining from from having too many children.

Mother Nature does have ways of remedying this situation herself, but much misery and suffering willl accompany these solutions.

But they will eventually become an unpleasant reality if we curb our urges to indiscriminately breed

Meant to say that they will become an unfortunate reality if we don't learn to control our urges to indiscriminately breed.

Certain concessions do need to be made here to the unfortunate reality of the situation, and its potential future consequences.

The nubers have to come down.

Let face it, people who don't have radios, tvs, computers, etc.to distract them from indulging in sex--- will enjoy the only plesure available to them.. If, condoms are not available or not used because of government or religious policies--- the population will grow!!!

I sure am glad to be in the company of such an intelligent narrow minded person who knows how to spell. Yippee

Are we putting the cart before the horse about population control ? When we say we should keep feeding people who multiply. Other cultures had mores about families that kept the populations under control. we have disrupted this. I do not know if God cares about suffering . He invented malaria and it works at keeping the populations down in Africa. ???

I am going to google Indian farmers suicide and see what results, Hurricane, my intelligent "friend".