Furthermore, currently, world-wide more people die from the "side effects" of too much food; not enough is not the challenge.
We have the food. It's just "unevenly distributed."
Furthermore, my sense is, the argument for the world needing GMOs is based on the animal protein heavy diet. Such animals are resource / feed intensive. Shift the diet to less meats and more plants and the fact is you feed more.
I'm not here to make a case for zero meat. Only the the pro GMO argument is based on a myth, a myth that I've seen plenty of reasonable people buy into.
Isn't there a chance GMOs will be able to allow the crops to be (chemical) pesticide free, so that way you can avoid putting cancer-causing chemicals on the food in the first place. That seems like a huge win to me.
I think as the developing world grows economically we will continue to see higher demand for meat. Eventually the only thing stopping higher meat consumption will be the fact that the price has been pushed higher and higher by limited worldwide production capacity intersecting with high demand.
I don't disagree. But the "need" for so much meat is a myth. The level of. First World meat consumption is bad for the planet, and bad for those who consume it.
Health, ethic, eco and moral downsides. Yet we're sooo blinded and confused.
We have the food. It's just "unevenly distributed."
Furthermore, my sense is, the argument for the world needing GMOs is based on the animal protein heavy diet. Such animals are resource / feed intensive. Shift the diet to less meats and more plants and the fact is you feed more.
I'm not here to make a case for zero meat. Only the the pro GMO argument is based on a myth, a myth that I've seen plenty of reasonable people buy into.