Climate Change | Energy | Sustainability | Environment | Transportation | Policy | Buildings

Rethinking How to Feed The World

More videos from this partner:

15
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 30 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
33noa333 Avatar
33noa333
Posted: 12.02.12, 08:40 PM
mitic ENERGY AND CLIMATE for last version see: http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au...T-2012-005.pdf
AbsoluteLunacy Avatar
AbsoluteLunacy
Posted: 10.11.10, 10:16 PM
@nonGMOtalk, Wow, that was a really well organized and researched statement. I totally agree, the way GMO companies behave leaves a lot to be desired and borders on criminal. However, let me play devils advocate on some of your other points. 1) "GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat" There also has not been any evidence that they are anymore unsafe for human consumption than organic foods. In fact most studies have found that modified foods are no more dangerous than any other. A review of the data by the The Society of Toxicology, published in the Oxford Journal, states, "Studies of this type have established that the level of safety to consumers of current genetically engineered foods is likely to be equivalent to that of traditional foods. At present, no verifiable evidence of adverse health effects of BD foods has been reported, although the current passive reporting system probably would not detect minor or rare adverse effects or a moderate increase in effects with a high background incidence such as diarrhea." 2) "GM foods won't solve the food crisis" I will agree with this to a point. No one thing will solve the crisis in of its self. However, GM foods have its place. According to a report by the USDA, "Pesticide use on corn and soybeans has declined sincethe introduction of GE corn and soybeans in 1996". Also, there is a lag time when it comes to GE crops. This lag time comes from the years the GE crops are selected only for trait expression instead of yield. Your statement that GE crops have not increase yields above none GE crops is incorrect based on the USDA report. "A 10-percent increase in the adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans led to a 0.3-percent increase in yields. On the other hand, an increase of 10 percent in the adoption of adoption of Bt cotton in the Southeast increased yields by 2.1 percent (USDA, 2010)." This is far from the increases we need but it is progress and the technology is young. Also, we see farmers using less fertilizers on GE crops and this has a ripple effect. Farm run off often causes hypoxia in water ways and is blame for massive dead zones in the gulf. This reduces another food source. As far as the conspiracy theory goes I got nothing not say, ;-). I do not make money from the Biotech industry, but our current system of corporations allow legal actions to be taken to make money, even if those actions are incredibly unethical. The only reason I like bio fuels is because of the relativity quick roll out time and the ability to use it in most modern cars. I would like to say that while I support giving aid to places like Africa. I do think the type of aid given needs to be thought about a little more. Giving anyone a tractor with out the knowledge and infrastructure to fix it when it breaks down is not doing them a lot of good in the long term. Equipment aid needs to be followed up with training and infrastructure development. That can only take place once a semi stable government is established. Ok, rant off Refrences The Society of Toxicology, The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology (2003) retrieve from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full United States Department of Agriculture, Microeconomic Impact of Adopting Bioengineered Crops (2010) Retrieve from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810g.pdf
33noa333 Avatar
33noa333
Posted: 10.10.10, 06:45 PM
HELP MOTHER NATURE FOR BETTER CLIMATE Use mighty power of nature. In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides, huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes. Tides are up to 12m. Evaporation is up to 4m per year and can be increased. Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes, desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia. World population is growing rapidly and we need more energy, food, land and water. see: Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/s...929-mitic.ashx this will change deserts and whole continent for better climate environment, provide hydro energy, permanently.
YRUhere?! Avatar
YRUhere?!
Posted: 06.24.10, 05:31 AM
The way the tax systems are setup throughout the world (with interest;you cannot payback)the debt without enough people to pay into it will implode.See the national debt crisis of Japan for instance.Its' population is not replenishing itself and they are looking forward to use robotics/human to assist the elderly for physical care. Some human mechanical assistance is being implemented already.
Invictus_88 Avatar
Invictus_88
Posted: 06.06.10, 08:26 AM
Interesting that only the scientific limits are pushed to their limit, whereas the political and economic factors go not just unchallenged, but unmentioned. I find this peculiar.
TheCollective Avatar
TheCollective
Posted: 05.23.10, 09:07 PM
GM crops can't help us save land for reasons of bio-diversity or ecology if people continue to eat up more land for other industries because the population is completely out of control. They are addressing symptoms, not the cause. Hunger is an effect of over-population. Get the population under control and hunger would be easier to avoid. That's not to say that corporate interference and class warfare don't contribute heavily to hunger/starvation, but still, having fewer mouths to feed in the first place would surely help.
rajiv85 Avatar
rajiv85
Posted: 05.14.10, 03:22 PM
Well the incentive is nice. However we have heard nothing from india even tho the main reporter was from India. My biggest wish is that in my life time I see a better world for everyone on earth. Bill Gates doing a fantastic job. However will his input be sustained over generations? It is said give a man a fish..feed him for a day.. teach him how to fish..feed him throughout his life. If Bill Gates only feeds them.. all the effort will be lost afer some years. Definitely there needs to be a LARGE international education. The leaders themselves need to be taught on how to get things done right.
Mark Sullivan Avatar
Mark Sullivan
Posted: 02.18.10, 09:42 PM
I am well acquainted with the owners of a chain of gourmet grocery stores. I have asked the produce manager which items go unsold and need to be discarded most frequently. His response - "The organic foods section." We need to check our arrogance and assumptions based on the relative wealth of the West at the door. The poorest of the poor need food. They have neither the interest in, the ability to pay for or the education to understand boutique, "organic" or biodynamic farming. They simply need nourishing food to survie. "Public Interest" (usually self-anointed so)scientific organizations need a little perspective. Feeding these poor and educating them to fewed themselves must be direct, cost effective and meet the simple goal of fedding the people, with no politicization of the issue. If we leave this issue to be solved by comfortable Western ideologues, beurocrats and think tank members who have never grown anything but some pot in their Harvard dorm rooms, with the usual high minded, elitist notions about "the right kind" of foods or the way food should be grown will only yield what this paralysis through analysis has always yielded - no results. I also know that governments cannot make this happen through deliberate actioon. If they could have, they would have. Hell, we are in the 50th year of a "War on Poverty" in the United States!
nonGMOtalk Avatar
nonGMOtalk
Posted: 02.12.10, 07:58 AM
To go non-GMO - www.nonGMOShoppingGuide.com Here are the top ten reasons why leading experts say that deploying and patenting the most powerful technology the world has ever known, genetic modification, without proper safety testing, is costing us at the supermarket and leading to environmental catastrophe. 1. GM foods won't solve the food crisis A 2008 World Bank report concluded that increased biofuel production is the major cause of the increase in food prices. GM giant Monsanto has been at the heart of the lobbying for biofuels (crops grown for fuel rather than food) — while profiting enormously from the resulting food crisis and using it as a PR opportunity to promote GM foods! ( Monsanto owns 80% of all GM seed patents worldwide.) "The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry." - Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent of The Independent[ "The cynic in me thinks that they're just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda. I understand why they're doing it, but the danger is that if they're making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that's bullshit." – Prof Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan in Wales 2. GM crops do not increase yield potential Despite the promises, GM has not increased the yield potential of any commercialised crops.In fact, studies show that the most widely grown GM crop, GM soya, has suffered reduced yields. A report that analyzed nearly two decades worth of peer reviewed research on the yield of the primary GM food/feed crops, soybeans and corn (maize), reveals that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase US crop yields. The author, former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr Gurian-Sherman, concludes that when it comes to yield, "Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down." "Let's be clear. As of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one." – Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman 3. GM crops increase pesticide use US government data shows that in the US, GM crops have produced an overall increase, not decrease, in pesticide use compared to conventional crops. "The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true." – Bill Christison, President of the US National Family Farm Coalition 4. There are better ways to feed the world A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change, because better alternatives are available. In particular, the report championed "agroecological" farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries. 5. Other farm technologies are more successful Integrated Pest Management and other innovative low-input or organic methods of controlling pests and boosting yields have proven highly effective, particularly in the developing world. Other plant breeding technologies, such as Marker Assisted Selection (non-GM genetic mapping), are widely expected to boost global agricultural productivity more effectively and safely than GM. "The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping, helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a far greater impact on agriculture [than GM]." – Prof John Snape, head of the department of crop genetics, John Innes Centre 6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat Genetic modification is a crude and imprecise way of incorporating foreign genetic material (e.g. from viruses, bacteria) into crops, with unpredictable consequences. The resulting GM foods have undergone little rigorous and no long-term safety testing, but animal feeding tests have shown worrying health effects. Only one study has been published on the direct effects on humans of eating a GM food. It found unexpected effects on gut bacteria, but was never followed up. It is claimed that Americans have eaten GM foods for years with no ill effects. But these foods are unlabeled in the US and no one has monitored the consequences. With other novel foods like trans fats, it has taken decades to realize that they have caused millions of premature deaths. "We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences." — Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist 7. Stealth GMOs in animal feed - without consumers' consent Meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on the millions of tons of GM feed imported into Europe do not have to be labelled. Some studies show that contrary to GM and food industry claims, animals raised on GM feed ARE different from those raised on non-GM feed. Other studies show that if GM crops are fed to animals, GM material can appear in the resulting products and that the animals' health can be affected.So eating "stealth GMOs" may affect the health of consumers. 8. GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers A 2009 report showed that GM seed prices in America have increased dramatically, compared to non-GM and organic seeds, cutting average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops. The report concluded, "At the present time there is a massive disconnect between the sometimes lofty rhetoric from those championing biotechnology as the proven path toward global food security and what is actually happening on farms in the US that have grown dependent on GM seeds and are now dealing with the consequences." 9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. An unapproved GM rice that was grown for only one year in field trials was found to have extensively contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks. In Canada, the organic oilseed rape industry has been destroyed by contamination from GM rape. In Spain, a study found that GM maize "has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible". The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply. "If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It's a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it's made, it can’t be reversed." – Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable development 10. We can't trust GM companies The big biotech firms pushing their GM foods have a terrible history of toxic contamination and public deception.[26] GM is attractive to them because it gives them patents that allow monopoly control over the world's food supply. They have taken to harassing and intimidating farmers for the "crime" of saving patented seed or "stealing" patented genes — even if those genes got into the farmer's fields through accidental contamination by wind or insects. "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell." – Tom Wiley, North Dakota farmer SOURCE - 10 reasons why we don't need GM foods (updated) http://www.gmwatch.org/10-reasons-wh...-need-gm-foods If you want to print this article as an A4 leaflet for distribution, download a PDF at: http://bit.ly/dzm5c0 PARTIAL REFERENCE LISTINGS 1. A Note on Rising Food Prices. Donald Mitchell, World Bank report, 2008. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...0/Biofuels.PDF 2. Hope for Africa lies in political reforms. Daniel Howden, The Independent, 8 September 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk:80/opin...ms-922487.html 3. GM: it's safe, but it's not a saviour. Rob Lyons, Spiked Online, 7 July 2008, http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/5438/ 4. The adoption of bioengineered crops. Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf 5. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Elmore, R.W. et al., Agronomy Journal, Vol. 93, No. 2, 2001, pp. 408–412 6. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops. Doug Gurian-Sherman, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009, http://tiny.cc/eqZST 7. Genetic engineering — a crop of hyperbole. Doug Gurian-Sherman, The San Diego Union Tribune, 18 June 2008, http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...e18gurian.html 8. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years. Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., The Organic Center, November 2009, http://www.organic-center.org/scienc...&report_id=159 9. Family Farmers Warn of Dangers of Genetically Engineered Crops. Bill Christison, In Motion magazine, 29 July 1998, http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/genet1.html 10. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD). Beintema, N. et al., 2008, http://www.agassessment.org/index.cf...ts&ItemID=2713
nikonwilly Avatar
nikonwilly
Posted: 02.11.10, 07:41 AM
I bet Gates does not eat any GMO foods! Pesticide companies having control over our food is dangerous. Their profit is selling more pesticides...they care nothing about feeding the hungry.
Advertisement

Advertisement
Live Now