Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say

Re:Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say by afarrell on Friday July 01, 2016 @08:34AM (#12015466)

It makes it easier for and given locality to grow more food, so it makes it easier to distribute that food.

It means that you can tolerate greater levels of waste. In a world where logistics are imperfect, there will always be some waste.

Also, if you have greater yield for a given input of labor, more people can go work in a factory make latex gloves or some huge number of life-saving products.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say by DasIch on Friday July 01, 2016 @08:47AM (#12015540)

Has there been any practical success in that area or is this still mostly theoretical?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say by ctack on Friday July 01, 2016 @09:24AM (#12015781)

This would be it, you'd deal with the inefficiencies of distribution by having more a robust ability to grow food where you need it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say by moptar on Friday July 01, 2016 @08:52AM (#12015569)

If you can grow food in more hostile environments, won't that mean people move to those more hostile environments and again end up dependent on unreliable food supplies, but now slightly further into the desert/salt flats/etc than before?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say by therestisgone on Friday July 01, 2016 @09:36AM (#12015892)

How is that supposed to help subsistence farmers who can't afford the seeds and heribicides?

[ Parent | on HN ]