Pješčana » wrote:
možda je teško čitati svaki moj post na ovoj temi. probaj, lijevo piše moj nick, i onda možeš vidjeti što mislim o ponudi i potražnji hrane i broju ljudi na planeti.
da, ja mislim da nepažljivo ulazi na tržište jer je potražnja velika i puno novaca je u igri, i ne mislim da je dovoljno testiran učinak te hrane.
ti znaš nešto više?
Na linkanom filmu su upravo i ti, medju ostalima, i sa dva dolara dnevno dali svoje misljenje o tome.
Nesto o Zelenoj revoluciji, pozitivno i negativno:
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/file ... b/ib11.pdf
I jos:
http://www.englisharticles.info/2010/05 ... evolution/
da ne bi ispalo da ta medalja nema i svoju drugu stranu, evo one lose strane:
Loss of biodiversity and food quality – The spread of Green revolution hybrids and the associated techniques has resulted in many fewer varieties of crops being grown. Some crops have seen upwards of a 90% reduction in crop varieties. Dependence on one or a few forms of a crop means increased fragility of the population and impaired ability to improve crops in the future, in addition to the unmeasurable loss of the contribution of a varied diet. In addition Green revolution crops are bred for growth efficiency and longevity (and sometimes appearance), not for health value. As such many hybrid crops are inferior in nutritional value to their ancestors. The introduction of Green revolution staples into regions that previously had hundreds or even thousands of varieties of crops, as well as the replacement of various nutrition sources with a single Green revolution alternative have led to poor nutrition as a result of switching from varied diets with many nutrition sources to single-crop or fewer-crop diets.
Fossil fuel dependence – While agricultural output increased as a result of the Green revolution, the energy input into the process (that is, the energy that must be expended to produce a crop) has also increased at a greater rate, so that the ratio of crops produced to energy input has decreased over time. Green revolution techniques also heavily rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, some of which must be developed from fossil fuels, making agriculture increasingly reliant on petroleum products.
Pollution – Fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide runoff continue to be a significant source of pollution, and a major source of water pollution. Although the dangerous, toxic and sometimes cancer-causing pesticides of the early half of the century (like 2,4,5-T and DDT) have mostly been phased out of agricultural usage (although DDT continues to be used in Third-world nations), their effects have often not been erased.
Land degradation – Critics charge that the Green revolution destroys soil quality over the long range. This is a result of a variety of factors, including increased soil salinity that results from heavy irrigation; “burning” of the soil by heavy use of chemical fertilizers, killing off beneficial soil microbes and other organisms; erosion of the soil; and loss of valuable trace elements. This can lead to increased reliance on chemical inputs to compensate for deteriorating soil quality, a process which may ultimately fail.
Prvi argument je isti kao i za GMO proizvodnju.
A GMO multikompanijama je bas do suzbijanja gladi u svijetu.
Pa oni su namjernim i ciljanim mobingom i terorom stotine farmera i njihove obitelji i odveli u glad.
a i ja sam čula za to.
