Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
GM Crops Promote Superweeds, Food Insecurity and Pesticides, say NGOs
Report finds genetically modified crops fail to increase yields let alone solve hunger, soil erosion and chemical-use issues
Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of "superweeds", according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people.
The so-called miracle crops, which were first sold in the US about 20 years ago and which are now grown in 29 countries on about 1.5bn hectares (3.7bn acres) of land, have been billed as potential solutions to food crises, climate change and soil erosion, but the assessment finds that they have not lived up to their promises.
The report claims that hunger has reached "epic proportions" since the technology was developed. Besides this, only two GM "traits" have been developed on any significant scale, despite investments of tens of billions of dollars, and benefits such as drought resistance and salt tolerance have yet to materialise on any scale.
Most worrisome, say the authors of the Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs, is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals, used to control pests despite biotech companies' justification that GM-engineered crops would reduce insecticide use.
In China, where insect-resistant Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of pests that previously posed only minor problems have increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat them.
Additionally, soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops, and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced.
The report, which draws on empirical research and companies' own statements, also says weeds are now developing resistance to the GM firms' herbicides and pesticides that are designed to be used with their crops, and that this has led to growing infestations of "superweeds", especially in the US.
Ten common weeds have now developed resistance in at least 22 US states, with about 6m hectares (15m acres) of soya, cotton and corn now affected.
Consequently, farmers are being forced to use more herbicides to combat the resistant weeds, says the report. GM companies are paying farmers to use other, stronger, chemicals, they say. "The genetic engineering miracle is quite clearly faltering in farmers' fields," add the authors.
The companies have succeeded in marketing their crops to more than 15 million farmers, largely by heavy lobbying of governments, buying up local seed companies, and withdrawing conventional seeds from the market, the report claims. Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, the world's three largest GM companies, now control nearly 70% of global seed sales. This allows them to "own" and sell GM seeds through patents and intellectual property rights and to charge farmers extra, claims the report.
The study accuses Monsanto of gaining control of over 95% of the Indian cotton seed market and of massively pushing up prices. High levels of indebtedness among farmers is thought to be behind many of the 250,000 deaths by suicide of Indian farmers over the past 15 years.
The report, which is backed by Friends of the Earth International, the Center for Food Safety in the US, Confédération Paysanne, and the Gaia foundation among others, also questions the safety of GM crops, citing studies and reports which indicate that people and animals have experienced apparent allergic reactions.
But it suggests scientists are loath to question the safety aspects for fear of being attacked by establishment bodies, which often receive large grants from the companies who control the technology.
Monsanto disputes the report's findings: "In our view the safety and benefits of GM are well established. Hundreds of millions of meals containing food from GM crops have been consumed and there has not been a single substantiated instance of illness or harm associated with GM crops."
It added: "Last year the National Research Council, of the US National Academy of Sciences, issued a report, The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, which concludes that US farmers growing biotech crops 'are realising substantial economic and environmental benefits – such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields – compared with conventional crops'."
David King, the former UK chief scientist who is now director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, has blamed food shortages in Africa partly on anti-GM campaigns in rich countries.
But, the report's authors claim, GM crops are adding to food insecurity because most are now being grown for biofuels, which take away land from local food production.
Vandana Shiva, director of the Indian organisation Navdanya International, which co-ordinated the report, said: "The GM model of farming undermines farmers trying to farm ecologically. Co-existence between GM and conventional crops is not possible because genetic pollution and contamination of conventional crops is impossible to control.
"Choice is being undermined as food systems are increasingly controlled by giant corporations and as chemical and genetic pollution spread. GM companies have put a noose round the neck of farmers. They are destroying alternatives in the pursuit of profit."

97 Comments so far
Show AllAnyone who's used just about any machine knows that it works well (if it all) when following a linear sequence. Bio-tech engineering pre-empts nature and proposes to do IT better than Mother Nature designed it to do, and be. It cannot account for factors outside of its limited, linear range. Whereas, Nature took century after century to put together complex LIVING communities. These have been threatened and tossed into disunity by bio-tech crops (and other forms of alleged development). I knew this would happen--that the yields, as promised, would go down; and that chemicals would be needed in higher supply to counter-act pests. The whole thing is bogus, another means of attacking the sources of Life to put in their place for-profit only monopolies that control citizens.
Monsanto is guilty of war crimes, and the suicide of 250,000 farmers adds to their karmic toll.
Well said, Siouxrose! And you too, jclientelle!
"I told you this was going to happen",,,,~Dopey~ of the Seven Dwarfs.
Siouxrose: Monsanto should have been illegalised years ago when they started killing people with their Orange spraying in Vietnam, causing veterans deaths due to cancer etc. All Monsanto want is to control food production by monopolising it and they can then control population in enemy countries and also reduce population when the planet is over populated. The worst is that only they have access to the organic seeds!! I just hope that after killing us all that they make the planet so uninhabitable that they will die too!!
The protests should be asking the Governments what they gain from this and why they are not imprisoning and illegalising Monsanto!!
Aolbsolutely! They have been committing crimes against humanity for decades. But of course Corporations are never liable. So they have the right to personhood but none of the liabilities. We need to strip them of this right which is an insult to all the victimised farmers and an insult to the millions of tortured farm animals who are way more entitled to personhood than they are.
The effects on US soldiers were terrible, but miniscule compared to the effects on Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians. The US sprayed 20 million gallons of dioxin-contaminated herbicides on those countries, telling the public it was trying to remove tree cover the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were using to move soldiers and supplies around the country. While that was partly true, the main purpose was to destroy crops in fields and forests to force the rural population into the cities, where they could be controlled by US forces. Monsanto’s and Dow’s herbicides killed or maimed half a million, caused another half million birth defects and caused massive famine. 5 million acres of forest were denuded and a roughly equal area of cropland.
At the same time the South Vietnamese army was collapsing and US forces fleeing the country, Cambodia was imploding. Because of the war, and famine caused by the killing of huge numbers of domestic animals that the country’s agriculture depended on, it was taken over by the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps partly in twisted reaction to the twisted US depopulation of the Vietnamese countryside the Khmer Rouge emptied Cambodia’s cities and drove people into the countryside. About 2 million died of starvation and violence; some call it the second worst genocide in history. The US killed more people in Southeast Asia; despite that, I’ve never once heard that called the second worst genocide.
Monsanto’s pathological program of genetically wounding the world continues to echo through the decades, from the fields of Vietnam to those of the US, Canada and other countries. “Illegal” hardly suffices.
J4: They also "won" the contract that involves a slightly more benign (yet lethal) chemical polymer being sprayed over Columbia's rain forest as an adjunct to the idiotic "War on Drugs." That this company made so much of its money as a war profiteer (in bogus wars) and now controls so much of the nation's cereal products and food supply is a theme chilling enough to qualify for sci-fi... A nation that had viable regulatory agencies woud never allow such an entity to be let loose near children, or in charge of what their developing bodies consume (or rely upon).
Hear, hear, Siouxrose!
Only it hasn't taken centuries for those communities to arise but thousands of millennia, and it will take that long to restore what we destroy through contamination, simplification and climate cataclysm.
Anybody who was paying attention knew this would happen. There's no point in making an herbicide-resistant crop unless you're planning on dousing it with herbicides. (They may be crazy but when it comes to money they're not stupid.) Since anyone messing with such processes is well-educated in all levels of biology, and one of the most firm foundations of that education is evolution, they all knew that resistance was inevitable.
Siouxrose - That is exactly what Vandana Siva is talking about when she says that reductionist science has been ruinous to agriculture. The reductionist science serves to develop and sell goods from Monsanto et al for immediate profit and control without any deep knowledge of, or concern for, interactions and emergent effects in complex living systems and ecosystems.
Jclientelle: I love the wisdom of Vandana Siva, and the woman (I can't recall her name at the moment) who won the Nobel Prize for planting trees in Africa. When I find that ideas I come to independently (never having read the works or philosophy of these luminous ones directly) reflect those of these spiritual adepts, I recognize that the Universal Wisdom speaks to all of us who open our sentience wide enough to receive it. The synchronicity is often spell binding...
Her name was Wangari Maathai; she died last month. The Greenbelt International organization she founded has planted (as far as I can tell) more than 10 billion trees worldwide) (45 million in Kenya alone) and continues to plant more than 2 billion a year.
I wonder if Goldman Sacs has bets against the environment, food chain, water supplies etc, similar to the bets they made against own clients in the recent financial disaster.
Maybe they are planning on making a fortune when the environment totally collapses, or the food chain disintegrates, or world fresh water supplies are gone. Who knows maybe they are pulling strings behind the scenes to encourage these things to happen as fast as possible.
Imagine the bonus they could get if they bet against the environment and a runaway greenhouse event destroys most of the life on Earth. Think of all the dead peasant life insurance policies they could collect.
That would be in character.
"here's the short and long of it,
there is no honor among thieves!"
All of the mega-banksters/financial houses has derivatives related to all of the commodities you name - there are trillions and trillions of them floating through the system. You can bet on it !!
That last quote from Vandana Shiva really gets to the heart of the matter. The apologists (fake persuaders) of the GM model will throw out canards, straw man, and attack the messenger tactics to try to deflect the comments away from the reality of GM technology.
The reality is that GM technology is being used by the major corporations to control the entire world's seed supply. GM technology allows these corporation to patent the seeds, to design seeds that can't grow without their chemicals, and seeds that can't reproduce themselves so the people of this world are forced to buy from them - forever. It's quite the scandalous business model.
Very soon (or maybe late tonight, or 2 days from now when few are paying attention to the thread anymore) the Fake Persuaders will come to this comment section to work diligently to undermine this article.
http://www.monbiot.com/2002/05/14/the-fake-persuaders/
Every single article that is published on CD about GM products is quickly contaminated by these Bullshit Public Relations con-artists. They are the little Eichmann's of Monsanto, Dupont and Sygenta. They will endlessly spin and spin to try and deflect you away from the reality - the endgame - of where GM technology is taking the world... total control of the world's seed supply by a few corporations. They will go on endlessly about the "science" ( its always their science that is right, and any independent scientific findings be damned) but they will never touch the reality of where GM technology is taking us - total control of the world's seed supply by a few corporations.
My god, the last time CD published an article by Vandana Shiva one of the PR hacks was here falsely attacking her character, while cleverly trying to avoid the issue and the data she provided. These PR hacks are fucking shameless cowards! These PR hacks have no conscience, no intelligence, no heart... they care only about their paychecks. They are just a bunch of sad, pathetic little Eichmanns. I would feel sorry for them if what they were doing wasn't so deceitful and damaging to the truth. But, alas! I hope they one day end up in jail.
Very well said!! And they literally get away with murder and have been doing so for years!! Now they want to patent our DNA too.
I call them zombies. They should commit suicide for the well being of society.
Mr Blair,Your comments are spot on. Control. That is the name of the game. I remember years ago when an article had come out in either The Economist or London FT Times about the fact that there were many Indian farmers who had believed that the claims of the GMO's and Monsanto were true. They went out and mortgaged the farm. They bought the MAGIC seeds and their crop was a failure. They went out and hung themselves in droves.
How can this be accepted? By corporations? or by just the human race.? This was a crime against humanity. Can you imagine how it would have hurt all those farmers but then after the suicides, all the wives and children of those farmers that were then thrown out in the street.
This subject needs to be addressed. The farmers of India alone should not have to take the brunt of Monsanto's mistakes. We have seen this where I live. The water is fouled and the environment ruined in towns throughout the south. They then change their names and sell to another company to protect their assets after cancer and other horrid problems raise their ugly head. Just basically criminal.
Eric: Thank you for your honesty, wisdom, and laser sharp acumen... great post.
Thank you, Siouxrose.
brightlight4@gm..., Veronique2, and casfoto... thanks for your comments as well.
EAB -- You refer to the spin artists as "Little Eichmans" I prefer "Rove" or "Cheney" or even "Breitbart". dh
"Monsanto disputes the report's findings:"
Of course Monsanto does. Monsanto's a criminal organization of proven liars who've methodically corrupted the scientific and governmental agencies that assess the safety of its products. Anyone who doubts that characterization should read "The World According to Monsanto", where the author, Marie-Monique Robin, documents Monsanto's evil-doing exhaustively.
"David King, the former UK chief scientist who is now director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, has blamed food shortages in Africa partly on anti-GM campaigns in rich countries."
Uh-huh. Of course Africa's shortages have nothing to do with rich countries' epidemic of obesity, and their squandering of crops to produce junk food and fatten livestock.
Well said. The meat centered diet of rich nations is the primary cause of food shortages. Thats one reason Im an ethical vegan. No child will die because of my food choices. GM seeds are responsible for ruining farmer's livelihood and destroying the fabric of nature. So many farmers are bullied by Monsanto. So many have committed suicide. Crimes against nature, crimes against humanity and crimes against animals who have not done any harm to us.
Monsanto exists because Capitalism exists. Even if Monsanto could be destroyed today, it would not help. There would be another newer and bigger Monsano tomorrow. The problem is Capitalism.
Capitalism is the ultimate rogue mutant meta-genetic engineering! ;)
Real capitalism was pure competition not monopoly and corporate personhood.
But why wouldn't a "real" capitalist use every tool at his disposal (that he could get away with) to make a profit ... including creating monopolies, re-writing laws and regulations, and capturing legislatures, judiciaries, the press, regulatory agencies?
.
Capitalism is not inherently or fundamentally good or evil, right or wrong.
The IMPLEMENTATION of capitalism - i.e. with or without proper boundaries, oversight, regulations, etc. - is what deserves the good/bad label.
Well said.
Capitalism exists because our psychopathologies manifest themselves in everything we do. Even if Capitalism could be destroyed today, it would not solve the problem. There would be another newer and bigger Capitalism (or Fascism or Soviet-style Communism (really just State Capitalism, the shadow image of our Capitallism) tomorrow. The problem is our individual and collective psychological wounding and our refusal to deal with it.
We must dismantle as much of industrial growth society as we can; at the same time we must proceed to heal ourselves so that we can help heal those who are even more addicted than we are.
"Work in the invisible world at least as hard as you do in the visible." Rumi
From the article:
" Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, the world's three largest GM companies, now control nearly 70% of global seed sales. This allows them to "own" and sell GM seeds through patents and intellectual property rights and to charge farmers extra, claims the report. "
Talk about a threat to national security and international security! Who needs Islamic "terrorists" when we have Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta controlling not merely the price of food, but the unnatural food itself.
I recently looked at a long aisle of packages of breakfast "food" at a Wal*Mart. A thousand varieties of artificially flavored crap, colorful boxes aimed at promoting to children (keyed to TV cartoon characters), all containing 90 percent identical ingredients. At the retail level it appears that we have choices here, but at the actual production level, a mere three privately held firms have us by our proverbials, literally.
This is truly frightening.
-30-
I wrote about this in 2005, article title IRAQI ORDER 81.
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/jackowski02012005/
Dear rosemarie jackowski---
I went to your posted link,
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/jackowski02012005/
and do believe that I read it back then. It came down to, Thou shalt not plant indigenous crops. While we drain the marshes... [while the Israelis were bulldozing Palestinian olive groves...]
I suspect that this would have been around the time I read Laurie Garrett's thick book on the failure of the public health system. (My father was an immunologist, my maternal grandfather an M.D.)
I try to bring my personal experience into some convergence with the social "external realities", being the near-daily confrontation with other people and the goddam Media, while also asking, almost daily, What is absent that was here before? Thus, I still do some gardening, mostly now in 5-gallon buckets since spading the soil is now too great a toll on my back and my knees. This as opposed to my semi-rural childhood (junior high), when we planted a quarter acre a year in gardening.
But, to cut to the chase, Order 8 1 is proof that protestations aside, this country uses agricultural policy for "national security" global purposes as essentially an integrated part of the Washington Consensus. (Here, we have senior Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, trying to explain agriculture to all the URBAN RUBES in Washington!)
Pre- WWII, probably most of the Congress came from rural districts and knew what chickenshit smells like. Today, the agricultural "markets" have been "financialized," and that is how they are approached in D.C.
To the peril of all.
In any case, thanks for being there...
-30-
The problemm now is a lack of honey bees... I understand the African honey bees are far better at reproducing and pollinating crops than the American specie.
Perhaps some scientists could cross breed Arfrican honey bees with American bees and then the genetically altered crops would be great.
No?
What other magic can humans think of? __ Maybe add to the amount of greenhouse gasers in the atmosphere to warm the plantet more so the Arctic region would be ice free and allow us to drill for oil there?
I wish Siouxrose and Joe were our prez and vvice prez.
Hi, Wayne. I'm in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and I happen to love coffee. Due to blood sugar issues, I can only have half a cup every day... so I decided to have coffee at a little corner spot in the Old World city of Old San Juan. No sooner did I attempt to sit outside with my espresso... did first one, and then another, and another honey bee circle that coffee! I had to get an employee to retrieve the cup, so I could drink it inside. At least 10 bees arrived by that time.-------------------------------------------
A few years ago a friend of mine was rolling a joint and he took the seeds out from his little stash of marijuana, and suddenly a honey bee came in out of no where, and took off with that seed! (Exhibit B) --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last bee tale: That same friend took me out on a boat past Cedar Key to a remote island that had inland tributaries as part of its condensed topography. He turned the engine off, and we sat in this little inlet literally BUZZING with millions of bees. So that's where they took off, electing exile in great numbers! ----------------------------------
In each of these instances I'm left to think that:-----------------------------------------------------
1. The bees want to escape the labor-intensive mainland of the USA for more leisure-oriented zones. Let's face it, The Machine has sought to turn just about every elemental kingdom and biological entity into an assembly line form of slave labor.-----------------------------------------
2. Bees like the buzz of grass, too. "It don't mean a thing, if it ain't got that zing."-----------------------------------------------------------
3. Bees do what they can to get away from the modern lifeless zones that Amerika's cities have largely become.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a different note, the article by Mr. Black, the truth about the imploding economy makes me wonder how an island like Puerto Rico will fare. I forgot how good fresh papaya and fresh pineapple taste. If people can live on fruit, they'll be OK here...
Thanks to all who responded to my initial comment. Of the first 24 posts ahead of this one, not one person sought to make an apology for Monsanto, or otherwise suggest that those of us who challenge this deadly behemoth of a corporate entity somehow lack scientific sophistication. Notice Mark Abrams took off when the lies and PR could no longer cover up for the Truth about Fukushima. Monsanto is right up there as a purveyor of DEATH to living systems and persons.-------------------------------
What's a Mother Nature to do?------------------------------------------------------------------
The bees we have here are already African-European hybrids. They are more properly called "Africanized". (Although the Mayans keep native stingless bees, there are no native American honeybees; the ones we keep were brought by European immigrants, particularly Quakers trying to boycott slave-grown sugar. They were sometimes called "White mans' flies" by Native Americans.) And while it seems Africanized bees may be resistant to Colony Collapse Disorder they are harder to work with and difficult to further hybridize out of their bad habits since they tend to completely take over when they move into the territory occupied by gentler bees. There are many species of native bees that pollinate plants but none produce honey that humans could use. They are also threatened by pesticides and loss of habitat. Africanized bees are not immune to pesticides and as far as I know aren't any better at pollinating crops than European bees. But keep thinking.
www.arlingtoninstitute.org/wbp/species-extinction/89#
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/zoology/insects-arachnids/bee8.htm
For an intra-American perspective, readers might appreciate:
American Prospect: Decline and Rebirth
Gus Speth, founder of World Resources Institute, Administrator of UNDP, and Dean of Yale School of Forestry, inter alia.
THE SOLUTIONS JOURNAL/ Issue 4 | Jul 2011
http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/951
I had pretty darn good yields this year despite very little rain the last half of summer, and very few weeds. Seed and fertilizer are very expensive. The fairly small amount of chemicals that I use are a minor expense. Governments should end subsides for bio-fuels.
Greg R,
Do you want a few corporations to monopolize and control the world's food supply?
No, monopolies are a bad thing. The 3 companies that control 70% of the seed sales set their prices quite high, but at a reasonable price compared to the (slightly) cheaper alternatives which often yield a bit less and/or require more expensive chemicals (mainly to control grasses).
So you think the 3 corporations using GM technology to monopolize the worlds food supply is a bad thing... and yet you then go on to promote them because they supposedly use less chemicals - which subtly tries to undermine all of the issues this article addresses and the empirical data that shows how farmers across the world are experiencing super weeds, and having to use MORE chemicals. Maybe you are just lucky to be an anomaly, huh?
Your logic is, uh, flawless [sarcasm]. Actually I do get why your logic is so warped... quite frequently economic needs compel people to act in strange ways. If you really are a farmer in MN then I would understand your warped position. And if that is just your fake online persona then it also shows why your logic is warped.
But as I mentioned to you a few months back (which you oddly ignored), my cousin is a farmer in central MN and he also supports his GM stuff because he has no choice. Reason being is that he is too busy running his farm, trying to feed his family, and trying to stay afloat. For him to even begin thinking about another choice at this time is just not in his deck of cards because it is way too risky, and he doesn't really have the time to think beyond his current reality - running his farm to feed his family. Another valid point is that there is no way in hell he could spend as much time as you do making comments on a message board. Hence why I question your CD persona...
I don't see how I could possibly be an 'anomaly.' As the article says, this technology is used on 3.7 billion acres. That's a lot of anomaly. Your cousin has the ability to make a choice. He farms the way he does because gm offers benefits. Also, unless he's very unlucky with weather or some other odd reason, he should be making pretty darn good money. This is the best economic time grain farmers have ever had. I would have more time to post here, but I've been busy cutting down trees and spraying them with herbicide mixed with diesel fuel. Ok, I know that sounds bad, but buckthorn is a horrible foreign plague in my woods. I know I will never win the battle against it, but I will work at it now and again, as long as I am able. It's a bit like fighting the worst of capitalism. It's never ending.
Like I said... your logic is warped.
"Your cousin has the ability to make a choice. He farms the way he does because gm offers benefits."
-- And how would you know his reasoning? How would know his current situation? Do you know him? Have you ever talked to him? No, you have not. So please take your presumptuous bullshit someplace else.
Yet my cousin farms over 1200 acres and gets the best yields in the County. He refuses to use GMOs of any type and in fact relies on legacy seeds his father used before him.
He does not use Herbicides or Pesticides. Indeed when I was walking through a crop of his and remarked on the plethora of grasshoppers he pointed out that 60 percent of Grasshopper species are beneficial to the growing of food crops.
In debating the use of Herbicides and Pesticides he pointed out that many neighbours used such chemicals but when factoring in the extra costs in time and fuel let alone the cost of the chemicals and considering his yields were more often then not still higher, he saw little in the way of economic sense.
He also stated that even if it made economic sense , what said chemicals do to wildlife, the ecosystem and the health of the people was immoral. (That Cancer rates were 1 in 20 and prior to the usage of these Chemicals and is now on the order of 1 in 2 should cause anyone with a conscience to take pause)
Oh and there were no ducks on this lake I used to go to as a child. I mentioned that to him and he indicated it due to a bloom that forms on the lakes due to chemicals seeping into the water. It becomes toxic for the birds.
I believe the 'bloom' you are talking about is algae. It has become quite a large problem. It is due to runoff of fertilizer from farms and also from lawns. Restrictions have been placed on the amount of phosphorus in lawn fertilizer as the phosphorus is the main culprit in the algae bloom. It's my understanding that as the algae finally dies, it pulls oxygen out of the water thereby leaving these areas uninhabitable to fish. No fish, no other animals who like to eat fish. I no-til farm which helps keep the soil, nutrients, and chemicals in their proper place. It also saves on equipment cost, fuel, and lots of time. The amount of time I spend in the fields seems ridiculously small compared to years ago. That's fine with me. I let the millions of earthworms do my tillage. I do nothing and they make my soil richer. That's more than fine with me.
dup
Paragraphs 4 & 8 of Wendell Berry's Twelve Paragraphs on Biotechnology *, in the Global Citizens report The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes:
Biotechnology, as practiced so far, is bad science – a science willingly disdainful or ignorant of the ecological and human costs of previous scientific-technological revolutions (such as the introduction of chemistry into agriculture), and disdainful of criticism within the scientific disciplines. It is, moreover a science involved directly with product-development, marketing, and political lobbying on behalf of the products – and, therefore, is directly corruptible by personal self-interest and greed. For such a science to present itself in the
guise of objectivity or philanthropy is, at best, hypocritical.
Finally, to do full justice to this issue, we must consider the likelihood that genetic engineering is not just a science, a technology, and a business but is also an intellectual fad and to some extent an economic bubble. It is being sold, and therefore oversold, as the latest answer-to-everything: it will solve the problem of hunger; it will cure every disease; it will “engineer our emotions, to make us happy and content all the time” (even, presumably, when we are broke, friendless, and have been hit by a car): it will permit everybody’s genome to be “read” in a sort of new-age palmistry. It is swarmed about by speculators and by
what Sharon Kardia of the University of Michigan called “snake oil salesmen”.
* from Citizenship Papers, 2002
When business plays God and pretends to know more than nature which has evolved the process over millions of years, inevitably pride has a price. How arrogant are scientists when they play around with genes, using their puny brains. How dare they think they know more than whats been created without their help for millions of years. You know the saying: "you reap what you sow". We are approaching the peek of this against nature insanity. It will be a very painful fall. And as usual the ones to pay won't be the ones who created the problem in the first place as they made sure to buy themselves a secure piece of land somewhere which will grow organics. They know they shouldn't eat that themselves, but will make sure the rest of the world does.
Our human world has the biggest problem in just sustaining
what natural productivity we already exploit.
Asking agriculture to produce more than natural systems allow, is asking for trouble. It always means taking more than the sustainable yield, without paying for what is due to nature.
The result is that natural production systems are in steep decline.
GM crops are part of the fossil fueled agriculture, that puts in energy and chemicals, and tries to exclude nature, but does not grow the soil.
Look after the soil, and it might look after you.
Abuse it, and our crops will wither and die.
We are over supportable population limits.
Famine is the inevitable result