Not really a topic-drift as we are still talking about whether or not organics are healthier .... for the individual, for the environment, for societies, etc, .... and this naturally would evolve to include a discussion of GMO's as Vandana Shiva has shown the catastrophe they've created for Indian farmers (as just one example).
So powerful of a catastrophe, it caused suicides 5 years before any were ever approved, much less planted or even became popular with the farmers, which took a couple of more years.
The suicides were not only a result of GMO cotton ..... which is why the suicides began before the introduction of GMO technology, but were certainly exacerbated by them. There are a number of reasons for the suicides, including gmos's, and also including multi-national agri-business getting its fingers into the Indian pie.
Yet the sources you have quoted clearly place the blame on the GMO seed.
The sources? I am using the info that Vendana Shiva has offered .... and she describes GMO's as well as a list of other factors ... mostly the globalization of food as a commodity which is enhanced and exacerbated by the GMO industry being largely tied to agri-business. It's a complicated issue and one that GMO's is largely tied to. But she lists a number of other factors. You would know this because you listened to the youtube I provided, right?
Vendana Shiva has explicitely explained the reasons for the suicides. GMO's are one very prominent reason for the stress on Indian farmers. She has very clearly outlined the stresses and has explained the role of GMO technology as a player in in the demise of farming in India. GMO technology is a player in a much larger business. This is where food sovereignty comes into play.
If this had been a case of similar misrepresentation you would have been leaping into the air pointing out the "dishonesty" of the corporations, but it is not so you seem to try to ignore it after it is pointed out multiple times.
GMO seed is a player in the take-over of smaller farm holdings to the interets of larger agri-business. What?
Why the Indian farmers choose to change crops that they had to see was literally killing their peers would seem to be a mystery since there are supposedly no advantages to GMO crops. It must be a governmental and corporate conspiracy to kill off farmers since Farm Aid saved all of their farms.
it's a complicated issue and there are several reasons why Indian farmers are suffering from corporate take-over. There was a perception of the advantage of GMO cotton in India just as there is a perception of advantages of GMO corn in America. Farmers in both continents bought the hope. Who wouldn't?
Yes, one cannot argue with facts very effectively and the facts are pretty clear to even those farmers.
Of course. It all made sense at one time.
The farms raising GMO crops show on average a higher yield than similar farms growing conventional crops. Higher yield is better in the eyes of a farmer trying to make a living.
Yes Wayne. Why wouldn't they adopt this technology. It was so promising and everyone is attracted by the lure of more profit. But when the people making promises turn into the people who own you .... and nature itself .... this becomes a problem.
Survival, suicide, and psychological health are very much related.
Not to mention, assumptions, suspicions, misrepresentations, and even lies seem to be key aspects of the opposition to new technology.
We can talk about assumptions, etc .... but this does not negate the fact that suicide and phsychological health are intimately related. Suspicion is a good thing and if you are accusing the "opposition" of lies, you'd probably best get specific.
More specific than the lies about the link to suicides years before any of the crops were ever approved to be planted?
The suicides increased once the technology was introduced, yet there was already a corporate take-over before 2002. Shiva spoke to it.
You linked the indian suicides to the specifics of GMO's, while GMO's were just a part of a larger process. You made an assumption. Vendana Shiva has been on the forefront and witnessed what is happenong to her people as a result of globalization, which includes GMO's. The multinationals are gobbling up this technology as they show terrific profit.
How much more specific do I need to get? More specific than the fact the few farmers planting GMO crops the first year showed on average a significantly higher yield than the farmers planting a conventional crop in a year with very bad weather conditions that severely impacted production? Thus, the GMO crops helped rather than harmed as was claimed
You need to think longer term. We all do. Let's be more specific. The first year showed higher yield as did the second and third and fourth and fifth .... And then what? This is an experiment .... don't forget, and we are the guinea pigs ... as is our land.
New technology is the story of our times. It is heralded as the life-saver. It's the hero we've all been looking for. But, as much as I would like a good hero to step in and save us all, it isn't going to. GMO's have been largely untested and yet, they are beginning to show their weakness.
What weakness? That people can lie about the products to support their fears? That they can assume more testing will somehow prove there are problems all while trying to disrupt that very same testing?
What in the world are you talking about? What "more" testing? Get clear and then state whatever it is you would like to state. There has been testing on GMO's ..... mostly by the GMO companies themselves. Not very objective by all and any accounts. There has not been independent testing ..... The GMO companies have done their own. Not good. The reecent French study is the first and the results have shown some damning results .... Of course these have been contested by the industry .....
I'm sure you argue so vehemently because your intentions are good. So are mine.
The sources you have used so far have either shown to be misrepresenting the facts or repeating the misrepresentations of others. Either way they hold little credibility as references.
That is fine if you can offer something yourself, which you have not!
Prove it rather than offering one or two line rebuttals.
My main source has been Vendana Shiva? I have no problem with her.
You haven't even used any! Waht are your sources?
What misrepresentation? Be specific. And make sure you are not misunderstanding or misconstruing.
Little credibility? What's yours?
You haven't even replied to some of my posts yet ..... that's okay as I have not responded to some of yours.
If you have some goods ..... show us!