lajoshua:

lol..but seriously all these big stores affect the sales of the local market, any city they are located the local market suffers and the irony is the import even basic things such as fruits,pathetic. lalasticlala what do you think??

But the big stores are far much better.

They bring economies of scale thus lowering prices,they're better in terms of sanitation standards and they help modernize a retail market still encumbered by stoneage style of chaotic small mom & pop road side shacks who probably don't remit sales taxes.

Don't tell me you prefer those filthy markets with open sewers,dusty outdated merchandize and smelly trash heaps next to them.

GMOs have no research-proven health hazards... Jesus, what kind of world am I living in??
,

Too many educated simpletons in the room.

1. GM is not altruism, its purely for profit. It's a well-known fact (or ought to be) that organic means
can easily feed the earth's population. In the US alone half the food supply is wasted annually.

2. If a 'mysterious' virus were to wipe out all organic variants of a particular crop, the world would
be at the mercy of the GM version's patent holder. Imagine if the whole world depended on one corporation for
rice. This would be beyond 'being rich'. They'd virtually own the world.

3. Blind trust in the 'science establishment' is shockingly childish. Do you really imagine that billions of dollars in play
cannot produce any kind of 'peer review'?
Do you think scientists are a special breed of men immune to money, lust, threats, careeer advancement promises?
Begin your (re-)education.

4. And if you bothered to read this far please google 'Steve Wilson Jane Akre' and find out how reliable your news really is
on these matters.

gaelllic:


Too many educated simpletons in the room.

1. GM is not altruism, its purely for profit. It's a well-known fact (or ought to be) that organic means
can easily feed the earth's population. In the US alone half the food supply is wasted annually.

2. If a 'mysterious' virus were to wipe out all organic variants of a particular crop, the world would
be at the mercy of the GM version's patent holder. Imagine if the whole world depended on one corporation for
rice. This would be beyond 'being rich'. They'd virtually own the world.

3. Blind trust in the 'science establishment' is shockingly childish. Do you really imagine that billions of dollars in play
cannot produce any kind of 'peer review'?
Do you think scientists are a special breed of men immune to money, lust, threats, careeer advancement promises?
Begin your (re-)education.

4. And if you bothered to read this far please google 'Steve Wilson Jane Akre' and find out how reliable your news really is
on these matters.

Neither is organic farming a movement meant for magnanimous purposes. Fortunately or unfortunately, organic farming cannot feed the world. It's not just simple as you write it. Climate change, water depletion, wars and conflict, degradation of the soil, limited space, a burgeoning population (Nigeria's population is estimated to balloon to 400 million by 2050 - world's population 9 billion ). Tell me, how can organic farming (which has its ills; feed the world sufficiently, in an affordable way) ? It's not just possible. China's soil has degraded over the last few years, is it the same soil you want organic farming to flourish?

I advise you visit Syngenta's website to understand about the patents rights issue. Besides, what stops you from developing yours as well? It's similar to the pharmaceutical industry, where a firm, say Astrazeneca, researches and develops a drug to treat asthma. While doing that, another firm, say Amgen does same, wouldn't the price of "an asthma treatment" come down due to forces of supply and demand?

On the other hand, it's ironical to think firms in the organic sub-sector (of any industry, ranging from hair to milk and so on) are doing theirs for charitable purposes.

OK. It's peer-reviewed - indicating extreme scrutiny amongst your contemporaries. Definitely, there would be "organic scientists" waiting to critique any of such research. This statement of yours is akin to saying CNN only airs news to support Hillary Clinton and discredit Donald Trump, when there's an alternative in FOX News. I'm saying this because you might accuse the likes of Nature or The Cell of not publishing "organic research" or "GM technology is not safe research". "Organic scientists" should conduct theirs, let's see - peer reviewed.