Replies

You started out by claiming seed companies were “criminal” because the progeny of certain patented seeds were sterile and now you’re upset because those sterile seeds will cross pollinate?

Let's try my original post, one more time.

I recall reading that Monsanto and Dupont and others now have the entire third world "dependant" on growing Genetically Modified (GM) rice that DOES NOT produce viable seed stock. I also recall that all seed stock for rice in India and China must now be GM and must be purchased. I recall reading somewhere or another that these same companies have done the exact same thing with soybeans. There is a claim of "higher yields". But there is obviously, much higher costs. These "costs" may well include the extra costs to health of those who eat GM rice, soybeans and other food staples. If this is true, then in my opinion, it borders on criminal.

-=] IF [=- there are higher costs which include health care that result from eating GM crops then I believe its reasonable to assume that the health costs would be a hidden cost. -=] IF [=- there are hidden health costs, then in my opinion, hiding those additional costs is dishonest. Being dishonest is, in my opinion, criminal.

I pointed out an example where options don't seem to work, unless one includes the option of higher costs for seed stock.

There is a claim of "higher yields". But there is obviously, much higher costs.

There is a claim of higher yields? Do you know anything about the history of genetically modified food? Have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug? Here are a few facts:

The initial yields of Borlaug's crops were higher than any ever harvested in South Asia. The countries subsequently committed to importing large quantities of both the Lerma Rojo 64 and Sonora 64 varieties. In 1966, India imported 18,000 tons —the largest purchase and import of any seed in the world at that time. In 1967, Pakistan imported 42,000 tons, and Turkey 21,000 tons. Pakistan's import, planted on 1.5 million acres (6,100 km²), produced enough wheat to seed the entire nation's wheatland the following year.[13] By 1968, when Ehrlich's book was released, William Gaud of the United States Agency for International Development was calling Borlaug's work a "Green Revolution." High yields led to shortages: of labor to harvest the crops; bullock carts to haul it to the threshing floor; jute bags, trucks, rail cars, and grain storage facilities. Some local governments were forced to close school buildings temporarily to use them for grain storage.

In Pakistan, wheat yields nearly doubled, from 4.6 million tons in 1965 to 7.3 million tons in 1970; Pakistan was self-sufficient in wheat production by 1968. Yields were over 21 million tons by 2000. In India, yields increased from 12.3 million tons in 1965 to 20.1 million tons in 1970. By 1974, India was self-sufficient in the production of all cereals. By 2000, India was harvesting a record 76.4 million tons of wheat. Since the 1960s, food production in both nations has increased faster than the rate of population growth. Paul Waggoner, of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, calculates that India's use of high-yield farming has prevented 100 million acres (400,000 km²) of virgin land from being converted into farmland—an area about the size of California, or 13.6 percent of the total area of India.[15] The use of these wheat varieties has also had a substantial effect on production in six Latin American countries, six countries in the Near and Middle East, and several others in Africa.

Norman Borlaug

A billion people, or more, are alive today because Borlaug didn't listen to the chemicalphobes and other assorted elitists and moved forward with his genetic modifications. Now, tell us all about your understanding of those "obviously, much higher costs."