# Are GMO's Necessarily Bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 17, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461 "2014-12-17T01:27:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/81 "2014-12-20T07:26:38Z")
Are GMOs inherently incompatible with organic farming techniques? ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/82 "2014-12-20T10:34:26Z")
> [@sbunny8](#): > > Because it’s been proven to work. No, it has not. There is no example of the soi-disant organic agriculture being able to feed scale. > [@](#): > > I’m not arguing specifically for organic agriculture. What I’m arguing for is sustainability, and organic is the closest thing to sustainable that we have now. I’m arguing for things that have stood the test of time, and I mean millennia, no just decades. This is false and not supported by any thing but romanticism of the past without any idea about the agronomic sciences. The organic planting > [@](#): > > For thousands and thousands of years, we ate food that was produced without chemical pesticides, without GMO seeds, without Roundup, without tons of artificial fertilizer made with phosphorus that came from a strip mine, without pumping water up from deep underground aquifers, without relying on machines run by a finite supply of fossil fuels. For thousands and thousands of years the human population was subject to the killer famines to the mass death and the mass immiseration of the malnutrition and the terror the uncontrolled disease to destroy the harvest. This is not something to romanticise, it is a spectre of death and the suffering. It is only with the mechanisation and the agricultural revolution that the human kind has been freed of this terror. And for badly informed, unscientific romanticism, you wish to return to it. Extraordinary indulgence. This is the “first world dilettantes” > [@](#): > > What happens when the phosphorus mines run out? There are tens of thousands of the confirmed and the known reserves. There is no shortage, this is a factoid advanced by people who are not understanding the actual sciencies. The Malthus crisis you advance is always being predicted and never happening. > [@sbunny8](#): > > I think you’re mistaken about that. Food crashes are more common in monoculture, which is what long distance transportation of food encourages. That is not true. > [@](#): > > Also, you’re assuming that transportation itself won’t go bust. That’s a pretty big assumption considering how heavily we rely on our (finite) supply of fossil fuels in order to move food around. This is stated in the face of the collapse of the fuel prices and assumes that there are no alternatives ever produced. So it is always with the Malthusien doom sayers. > [@eschereal](#): > > What the hell. You equate “organic farming” with stupid farming? Because we have learned nothing about farming practices? Farming practices that even the Native Americans knew how to effect? No he is making a correct statement, the farming until the soil is exhausted and then rotating is precisely the traditional agriculture, same if it is the native americans or in africa. It is not stupid, it is the necessity if the farmer has not the inputs to do otherwise, it is the necessary practice despite what the romanticisations think. > [@](#): > > Consider the Dust Bowl. That was some pretty darn high-tech farming going on there. Why did it happen? Primarily because of market forces that drove farmers to ruin so that they had to abandon their fields to the wind and the drought. I suspect this description is not correct at all, but ideology. > [@](#): > > Growing enough food for everyone can be done without technical tricks and without chewing up all the wild land, we just need to be flexible and smart about how we do it and not force ag to focus on peak profits. What is the yields analysis per square hectare for the climate zones for the basic crops that will be needed to achieve the calories needs for the population that you have seen to support this for proven methods above the 1 hecatre level? I think you have never seen any such analysis of any crop, never mind for the complete multi crop systems, and are engaging in romantic assertion like I hear from the NGOs who claim we do not need the Power Centrales built in Africa, that we can just do everything by solar - without these romantics ever having done any hard calculation but on pure belief. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/83 "2014-12-20T13:04:27Z")
People complaining about GMOs making monocultures worse should read [this article](http://www.biofortified.org/2014/08/do-gmo-crops-foster-monocultures/). The real cause of monoculture has very little to do with GM crops and almost everything to do with efficient harvesting, something we cannot realistically do away with, nor should we want to. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/84 "2014-12-20T14:56:55Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > What the hell. You equate “organic farming” with stupid farming? Because we have learned nothing about farming practices? What I find stupid is misplaced romanticism about how wonderful things supposedly were for “thousands and thousands of years”. Sure, modern organic farming is more intelligently conducted. Converting to it substantially or entirely would still require putting a lot more land into agricultural production to meet our needs, which is not an environmentally sound proposition. There’s going to continue to be a market for organic produce, which is fine by me (even when consumers [aren’t getting what they pay for](http://www.wsj.com/articles/organic-farming-boom-stretches-certification-system-1418147586)). I can choose not to pay a premium for a dubious benefit, and organic food buyers can choose not to pay for processed foods (which is where most of the GM corn and soybeans go). I prefer that they _not_ choose to sabotage GM papayas, golden rice, or any other useful crops by hyping misplaced fears and bad science. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/85 "2014-12-20T15:07:16Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > People complaining about GMOs making monocultures worse should read [this article](http://www.biofortified.org/2014/08/do-gmo-crops-foster-monocultures/). The real cause of monoculture has very little to do with GM crops and almost everything to do with efficient harvesting, something we cannot realistically do away with, nor should we want to. This is a useful article which is showing for the united states that what is being complained of about the GMO is not rationally connected with them (like we see in so many other cases now), and showing it be the data of production by hectares over time, not insubstantial romantic claims. And it is not an accident that the author is a scientist of agronomy. ---
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/86 "2014-12-20T16:23:39Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > For thousands and thousands of years the human population was subject to the killer famines to the mass death and the mass immiseration of the malnutrition and the terror the uncontrolled disease to destroy the harvest. This is not something to romanticise, it is a spectre of death and the suffering. It is only with the mechanisation and the agricultural revolution that the human kind has been freed of this terror. And for badly informed, unscientific romanticism, you wish to return to it. Extraordinary indulgence. This is the “first world dilettantes” You say I’m romanticizing the past. I say you’re demonizing the past. The biggest lie of history is the idea that the past was terrible and the present is so much better for everyone. The truth is that the present is pretty good for some of us and really really bad for most of us and the past wasn’t nearly as bad as you think. Just to be clear, I’m talking about a timescale of millennia, not decades. Also, I’m not saying that everything in the past was great or that everything in the present is lousy. I’m saying we need to look at the long-term consequences of the choices we make. I’m not saying we should copy and paste everything from the past. Go back in time as recent as 1,000 years ago. Now pick a random spot on the planet. Chances are you won’t see cycles of boom and bust agriculture, feast and famine, unless you look at Europe. Why? Because Europe was overpopulated. If you want to get out of the boom-and-bust cycle, adding more “boom” isn’t going to help. > [@Ramira](#): > > The Malthus crisis you advance is always being predicted and never happening. It hasn’t happened yet, therefore it will never happen. That’s a logical fallacy. > [@Ramira](#): > > That is not true. Ouch. You got me there. > [@Ramira](#): > > This is stated in the face of the collapse of the fuel prices and assumes that there are no alternatives ever produced. So it is always with the Malthusien doom sayers. No he is making a correct statement, the farming until the soil is exhausted and then rotating is precisely the traditional agriculture, same if it is the native americans or in africa. It is not stupid, it is the necessity if the farmer has not the inputs to do otherwise, it is the necessary practice despite what the romanticisations think. I suspect this description is not correct at all, but ideology. “I suspect this description is not correct at all, but ideology”. You took the words right out of my mouth. That’s exactly my reaction so far to everything you’ve said. > [@Ramira](#): > > What is the yields analysis per square hectare for the climate zones for the basic crops that will be needed to achieve the calories needs for the population that you have seen to support this for proven methods above the 1 hecatre level? I think you have never seen any such analysis of any crop, never mind for the complete multi crop systems, and are engaging in romantic assertion like I hear from the NGOs who claim we do not need the Power Centrales built in Africa, that we can just do everything by solar - without these romantics ever having done any hard calculation but on pure belief. Finally, some discussion of actual facts instead of emotions. Ok, Ramira. Enlighten me. What **is** the yields analysis per square hectare for the climate zones for the basic crops that will be needed to achieve the calories needs for the population that you have seen to support this for proven methods above the 1 hecatre level? ---
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/87 "2014-12-20T16:46:43Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > What I find stupid is misplaced romanticism about how wonderful things supposedly were for “thousands and thousands of years”. I never said it was wonderful. I said it worked. Lefler’s Law #36, You Gotta Go With What Works. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Sure, modern organic farming is more intelligently conducted. Converting to it substantially or entirely would still require putting a lot more land into agricultural production to meet our needs, which is not an environmentally sound proposition. Or it means reducing our needs. We could accomplish that in less than a century just by choosing to have fewer babies, and nobody has to starve. By my estimates, there are right now 7 billion humans, of which roughly 2 billion are children and just over 1 billion are females of childbearing age. If those 1 billion women decided to only have 1 baby each instead of 2.3 babies each, then 18 years from now we’d have 1 billion children instead of 2 and the world population would be down to 6.3 billion. In 36 years, the 1 billion children would have grown up and half of them would be women of childbearing age who could choose to have just one baby each and the total population would be down to 5.5 billion. Then 54 years from now we’d have only half a billion children and the world population would be down to 3.9 billion. In 72 years we’d have only a quarter billion women giving birth to just a quarter billion babies, with a total population of 2.5 billion. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/88 "2014-12-20T16:49:43Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > No he is making a correct statement, the farming until the soil is exhausted and then rotating is precisely the traditional agriculture, same if it is the native americans or in africa. > > It is not stupid, it is the necessity if the farmer has not the inputs to do otherwise, it is the necessary practice despite what the romanticisations think. Well, for starters, the native Americans discovered a sustainable, albeit rather labor intensive farming technique known as “[the Three Sisters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_%28agriculture%29)”. It took many many years for them to work it out, but the practice became widespread. But my point is that you cannot equate traditional farming methods to modern organic farming, as though we have learned nothing over the past few centuries. It is the classic straw man, that organic farming must needs involve traditional land-wasting practices. > [@](#): > > I suspect this description is not correct at all, but ideology. Your suspicions would be entirely wrong. The primary cause of the dust bowl was a textbook example of a capitalistic short-sighted boom/bust cycle, fed in part by government mismanagement. When overproduction led to market collapse, the farmers stopped planting because the prices could not longer support their production. This converged with a natural drought cycle, leaving bare, dry land in the path of the normal prairie winds. The most important element in this story is water. This is the bane of agriculture, from time immemorial. Right now, we are tapping ancient aquifers to sustain heartland farming, which is not a sustainable practice, because these aquifers are a finite resource that will eventually run out. You can substitute wind turbines or nuclear plants for the power of fossil fuels, you can, I suppose, find other ways to create fertilizers, but there is no alternative thing to replace water. We can, maybe, try desalination, but it is not clear that the energy cost of doing that will not be crippling. > [@](#): > > What is the yields analysis per square hectare for the climate zones for the basic crops that will be needed to achieve the calories needs for the population that you have seen to support this for proven methods above the 1 hecatre level? I think you have never seen any such analysis of any crop, never mind for the complete multi crop systems, and are engaging in romantic assertion like I hear from the NGOs who claim we do not need the Power Centrales built in Africa, that we can just do everything by solar - without these romantics ever having done any hard calculation but on pure belief. The land can handle what it can handle. This is where we circle back to the population issue. If people are starving, it is usually because the land cannot support them. If the rest of the world chooses not to provide food for the people of South Sudan, Niger, Somalia, where ever, what other option do those people have but to starve? GMO crops will not help them if their own land cannot support them, if the rest of the world decides to leave them dangling. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/89 "2014-12-20T17:00:50Z")
> [@sbunny8](#): > > You say I’m romanticizing the past. I say you’re demonizing the past. Demonizing? The fact of famine and the fact of malnutrition being the standard human condition are facts recorded in history and in the physical remains. The history is one of famine, even in the European countries being reoccurent until the advent of the modern agriculture and the use of the improvement and inputs practices you demonize in ignorance. > [@](#): > > The biggest lie of history is the idea that the past was terrible and the present is so much better for everyone. The truth is that the present is pretty good for some of us and really really bad for most of us and the past wasn’t nearly as bad as you think. This is sheer romanticism of the most absurd kind. We are in this discussion speaking to human agriculture and the feeding of humans. The _ **“truth”** _ is not subjective in this area. the humanity including in most of the developing countries which are not in the state of conflict, is better fed and it is better nourished in its greatest majority than at any time in its prior history. The lifespan of the ordinary person has increased greatly, including in the developing countries and greatly if we exclude those in states of conflict or long in them even if exited, as have the measurements of health and is reflected in greater statures over the past century. > [@](#): > > Just to be clear, I’m talking about a timescale of millennia, not decades. This is without meaning, there is not a single agriculture production system that sustains the urban civilisation that is millenia old. There is not a lesson from thousands of years ago in agriculture except that the traditional agriculture destroyed and exhausted lands that were not replenished from outside like the case of the Nile. > [@](#): > > Also, I’m not saying that everything in the past was great or that everything in the present is lousy. I’m saying we need to look at the long-term consequences of the choices we make. I’m not saying we should copy and paste everything from the past. No you are making vague emotional appeals to the past as a vague and disguised attacks on the gmo and the modern agriculture without admitting to the lack of a replacement and without admitting to the fact that you are calling back to a past that if retunred to would doom the majority of the 7 billion alive today to death by starvation. > [@](#): > > Go back in time as recent as 1,000 years ago. Now pick a random spot on the planet. Chances are you won’t see cycles of boom and bust agriculture, feast and famine, unless you look at Europe. _ **What?** _ \*\*That is utterly false, \*\*the chances are you do indeed see this because it is the typical cycle. It is seen in any traditional agricultural system - even the most stable like the Nile which had its renewal and regulation the death by famine came when the poor rains led to the poor flood. > [@](#): > > Why? Because Europe was overpopulated. If you want to get out of the boom-and-bust cycle, adding more “boom” isn’t going to help. This is a nonsense response that has in it the false assumption there is an ideal population. All that is required for the boom and bust of agriculture is the weather cycle and the bad harvest or series of them sometimes. And this is a feature of all weather systems. Excepting perhaps the island economies of the pacific which are not I think truly agricultural, we seen in all the major systems, from the Africa - north and south of which I know the hstory of the West africa - to the collapses of the americas such cycles. It is dangerous romanticism ill informed of history that allows someone to write only in europe… > [@](#): > > It hasn’t happened yet, therefore it will never happen. That’s a logical fallacy. No it is a factual observation that the malthusian anti progress voices have consistently over many centuries made the same mistakes of analysis and always assume the static, unless it is to assume the bad, when in fact the history shows the best and most proven assumptions are those for improvement. This is most particularly because the improvements needed are well known and within the reach. > [@](#): > > Finally, some discussion of actual facts instead of emotions. Ok, Ramira. Enlighten me. What **is** the yields analysis per square hectare for the climate zones for the basic crops that will be needed to achieve the calories needs for the population that you have seen to support this for proven methods above the 1 hecatre level? So in fact you have no such knowledge. That is not a surrpise. You assert vast claims on the romantic belief and the romantics and naive ideas about the past. The actual science in summary can be found in [the studies like this meta study](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html)in Nature, which in the real world circumstances of grwoing and this for hte developed world crop climates finds “34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable)” ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/90 "2014-12-20T18:43:37Z")
> [@filmstar-en](#): > > Another reason why GMOs are bad is political and economic. > > There are big Pharma companies out there who would like every farmer in every country to pay a subscription to use their their patented brand of infertile GMO seed. > > Funnily enough, many farmers are none too keen on this Wait, what? Something like 90% of the corn coming out of the USA is GMO. It’s not like farmers _can’t_ get conventional or non-GMO seeds. They have all kinds of different resources for such things. They _choose_ GMO seeds, despite the cost of a yearly subscription (the seeds themselves are not infertile, by the way - the idea of infertile seeds was shelved due to public outcry and ignorance), because the benefits are very substantial. > [@sbunny8](#): > > Go back in time as recent as 1,000 years ago. Now pick a random spot on the planet. Chances are you won’t see cycles of boom and bust agriculture, feast and famine, unless you look at Europe. Why? Because Europe was overpopulated. If you want to get out of the boom-and-bust cycle, adding more “boom” isn’t going to help. _Citation needed_. Seriously, this is a ridiculously tall claim and you make no attempt to support it whatsoever. > [@](#): > > It hasn’t happened yet, therefore it will never happen. That’s a logical fallacy. The point is you’re claiming that it will happen, and on the basis of that claim saying that we need to stop using technologies that help a lot of people. And as a result cause a lot of suffering. You’ve given us no reason to believe that it will happen, other than general cynicism. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/91 "2014-12-20T19:45:02Z")
[QUOTE=sbunny8] Or it means reducing our needs. We could accomplish that in less than a century just by choosing to have fewer babies, and nobody has to starve. [/QUOTE] Assuming your vision of massive population reduction has any chance of success (an extremely dubious proposition), then everyone who starves in the meantime because well-off Westerners are demonizing a technology that could help save them…well, tough luck, Third Worlders. You’ve starved in famines for thousands and thousands of wonderful romantic years, what’s another century or so in the grand scheme of things? Not that population control is not a laudable goal and one that is practical to a certain extent. But it’s foolish to pretend that massive population reduction is going to be achieved in 72 years (or whatever imaginary span of time you’re proposing) and so we can dispense with a useful and life-saving technology that can be implemented at the same time we’re encouraging smaller families. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/92 "2014-12-20T22:02:10Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > But my point is that you cannot equate traditional farming methods to modern organic farming, as though we have learned nothing over the past few centuries. It is the classic straw man, that organic farming must needs involve traditional land-wasting practices. I speak from the current african context and the practices of fallow and of land rotation in any case are not land wasting it is inherent in any intensive practice that is not using the added inputs. > [@](#): > > Your suspicions would be entirely wrong. The primary cause of the dust bowl was a textbook example of a capitalistic short-sighted boom/bust cycle, Capitalistic short sighted tells me immediately this is ideology speaking of the same terrible point of view that has so often destroyed agriculture in africa. When there is a cite to a not ideological presentation, I will give credit. > [@](#): > > . This converged with a natural drought cycle, leaving bare, dry land in the path of the normal prairie winds. Et la verité. > [@](#): > > Right now, we are tapping ancient aquifers to sustain heartland farming, which is not a sustainable practice, because these aquifers are a finite resource that will eventually run out. and so it is why varieties less water intensive are useful. As in much of the globe. The usage of water is not a thing fixed. > [@](#): > > you can, I suppose, find other ways to create fertilizers, Why? there is no reason to do so. > [@](#): > > but there is no alternative thing to replace water. There is, it is called efficiency, in its usage by method and by the plant. This is a visioin impoverished that is not. > [@](#): > > The land can handle what it can handle. False. This is the static false vision that assumes no change, that assumes no improvement in the inputs, in the technology. The lands of the americas already handle more than they could only in the early 20th century due to the improvements. The statement is a false understanding. > [@](#): > > If people are starving, it is usually because the land cannot support them. No it is because the human systems, the market systems and the government systems have failed and are generating starvation. It is the clear knowledge of the past 30 years of the research on famines that there is almost always sufficient food in theory available, but it is the interventions of collectivsations or the warlords that have made a short term shortage that would be bridged over to become a disaster. > [@](#): > > GMO crops will not help them if their own land cannot support them, if the rest of the world decides to leave them dangling. That is utterly false. First, the potential of the gmo crops that are adapted to the drier and the specific soil conditions of a region contribute to avoidance of the local food deficit, and the greater efficiency Second, the improvement of productivity for agriculture globally lowers the food prices making the avoidance of a famine by trade or by relief affordable. Third, it is a prejudice that a certain land area much support all its population from its own agriculture. There is no reason for this in a world of the potential surplus and with the trading. Behind all this is a genocidal view which wants the world population to starve to meet its preferences - the world population that is not blessed to live in the well watered already rich areas that can conform to its romantic preferences born of the luxury. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/93 "2014-12-20T22:40:35Z")
> [@sbunny8](#): > > Go back in time as recent as 1,000 years ago. Now pick a random spot on the planet. Chances are you won’t see cycles of boom and bust agriculture, feast and famine, unless you look at Europe. Why? Because Europe was overpopulated. If you want to get out of the boom-and-bust cycle, adding more “boom” isn’t going to help. Not if you believe[Wikipedia.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines) Famines all over the world: ancient Rome, China, India, Africa, North America. Famines that brought down entire civilizations, like the Maya. Famines due to drought, due to cold temperatures, due to volcanic introductions, due to wars. Famines that lasted for years, not just a single growing season. And while the Bible and Bhagavad Gita can hardly be considered historical documents, the multiple references to famine show that their audiences were at least familiar with the concept, just as the Buddha encountered a famine in the 12th year of his journey. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/94 "2014-12-20T23:02:48Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Capitalistic short sighted tells me immediately this is ideology speaking of the same terrible point of view that has so often destroyed agriculture in africa. > When there is a cite to a not ideological presentation, I will give credit. Not sure how “ideological” [this site](http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/dust-bowl-cause.htm) is, but the third paragraph is essentially the same thing that I have been saying. > [@](#): > > and so it is why varieties less water intensive are useful. As in much of the globe. The usage of water is not a thing fixed. Your turn: cite? What are these modifications? There are only 3 types of aspiration/photosynthesis, there does not appear to a whole lot of room to improve water usage while also maintaining high yields. > [@](#): > > False. This is the static false vision that assumes no change, that assumes no improvement in the inputs, in the technology. And _you_ call _me_ a romantic ideologue. I am not convinced that technological advancement is a panacea, even that it bring with it serious risks. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/95 "2014-12-20T23:22:00Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Not sure how “ideological” [this site](http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/dust-bowl-cause.htm) is, but the third paragraph is essentially the same thing that I have been saying. The “mechanized farming” cited in that article consisted of the plow and the tractor. Just how far back do you think we need to turn the clock to get to sustainability? Horse-drawn plows? Making a hole in the ground with a sharpened stick? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2014, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/96 "2014-12-21T03:27:04Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > I am not convinced that technological advancement is a panacea, even that it bring with it serious risks. There’s a wee bit of irony hearing this from someone typing a message on a computer keyboard and sharing it over the Internet. I am not convinced that hammers are a panacea. Sure, you claim they’re a tool to build things, but what if they’re used to kill people? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/97 "2014-12-23T00:55:18Z")
I just noticed that there are labels on the bottles of two different brands of concentrated unsweetened cranberry juice in my fridge, announcing that they are GMO-free (one of them is certified by the Non-GMO Project). What a relief!!! Of course, GM cranberries do not exist, so cynics might perceive such labeling as a ploy to attract morons. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/98 "2014-12-23T14:31:22Z")
You think that’s bad? They’re advertising GMO-free _eggs_ here. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/99 "2014-12-23T15:03:38Z")
The winner and champion is still [non-GMO salt](http://www.science20.com/cool-links/nongmo_salt_i_cant_wait_see_whole_foods-111929). At least, until someone advertises non-GMO oxygen at their oxygen bar. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461/100 "2014-12-23T15:38:58Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Excepting perhaps the island economies of the pacific which are not I think truly agricultural, we seen in all the major systems, from the Africa - north and south of which I know the hstory of the West africa - to the collapses of the americas such cycles. Some island economies in the Pacific were highly productive under premodern agriculture (I know all the criticisms of Jared Diamond, yes, but he suggests pretty high yields for Hawaiian agriculture). Of course, Hawaiian islands are volcanic, and volcanic soils tend to be pretty fertile, which is why they were able to achieve high yields. The advantage of modern artificial fertilizers, pesticides, etc. is that you can achieve very high yields even in soils that are not all that natural productive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-gmos-necessarily-bad/707461.md?page=6)