Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Happy Story of GM Crops
Since the first commercial cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in 1996, Monsanto and the rest of the big six Biotech seed companies, (Pioneer/DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Bayer) have become masters at the art of story telling.
Farmers, always looking for the next big technology fix, loved the stories; the promise of better yields, less chemicals needed for weed control, higher profits and of course, a solution to the elusive goal of feeding the world.
Governments, seeing biotechnology as a huge economic engine, embraced the technology. University research was shifted almost exclusively to biotech crops.
GM was the wave of the future, bankers encouraged planting GM crops to guarantee a "profitable harvest". Crop insurance premiums were lower for farmers planting GM. Everyone bought the story.
In a recent opinion piece in the Wisconsin State Journal former Secretary of Agriculture John Block touted the virtues of GM crops and credited them with producing higher yields, lower pesticide use and solving the ever growing problem of world hunger. Current Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack plugged GM at last weeks USDA Outlook Conference.
Problem is, the promises were just good stories. The believers are missing the truth.
Weeds have become resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide and insects became resistant to the toxins produced by their GM corn.
As GM was planted on more acres, overall pesticide use went up, not down.
A University of Kansas study found that GM crops actually had lower yields than their conventional counterparts.
Even as the problems of GM crops become more apparent, the cost of GM seed continues to rise. Many farmers are backing away from GM, but finding non-GM seed is difficult, considering Monsanto controls roughly 90% of the corn and soy genetics in the U.S.
With corn and soy well under their control, Monsanto now hopes to gain USDA approval for Roundup resistant alfalfa. A perennial crop, alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and again, Monsanto sees profit. The contamination of non-GM and organic alfalfa, the potential for further reduction of bee populations, among other problems, seem of little consequence.
Feeding the world? GM will not do it, even former Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro admitted "The commercial industrial technologies that are used in agriculture today to feed the world... are not inherently sustainable."
Still, Monsanto bills itself as a leader in global sustainability, ignoring the fact that true sustainability cannot be achieved when your only driving goal is the next quarterly profit report.
The world stands a better chance of feeding itself by using and improving upon farming methods that have been relied upon for centuries. In Africa, for example, if indigenous crops, long adapted to their environment, were put forward as the solution to hunger, studies show that the population could have adequate food supplies and at times, cash income from sales of surplus crops.
So, why do so many continue to believe, to have faith in the story, when the evidence is against them?
When GM crops do not yield as promised?
When a USDA report
When seed costs are unreasonably high as are the fertilizers and chemicals that are absolutely required to grow GM? When consumers continue to reject GM foods citing concerns of their serious health risks? When GM will not feed the world? The GM story as told by the Biotech giants paints the future as a happy and prosperous place; farmers are profitable, everyone is well fed and the environment is protected. The real GM story is not so happy, it is a story of market control, of environmental degradation, of deceived farmers and consumers.
- Posted in
98 Comments so far
Show AllLocal farmers wish they could go back to the older strains of corn and wheat but, as the article pointed out, getting the seed is next to impossible. But a few regional companies do still provide some non-GM crop seed, for a share of the crop...
Gary
“The most striking result of our present system of farming out the national land and capital to private individuals has been the division of society into hostile classes, with large appetites and no dinners at one extreme, and large dinners no appetit”
-- George Bernard Shaw
Another problem with getting and growing non GMO seeds is the proprietary nature of the GMO's. Even if they could get any. When a non-GMO gets contaminated by GMO crop, the non-GMO farmer is to blame and is "stealing" the proprietary crop. They are then sued and put out of business or forced to grow GMO crops. I have yet to see someone control bee pollination habits or directional wind over a crop field.
Millions against Monsanto - cover the earth:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
World Referendum on Climate Change.
President Evo Morales would like to know what YOU think.
http://portalmre.rree.gov.bo/cumbre/Referendum.aspx
"In view of the profound differences found between presidents and continents in the Copenhagen climate summit, Bolivia's President Evo Morales proposes to conduct a referendum with the peoples of the world for an agreement that could save Mother Earth from the abuses of capitalism."
Five simple basic questions - chime in...
Hi old goat, thanks for the link. I went and took the poll and added the following comment: "I think there needs to be an Interpol-like agency to enforce the rights of Mother Earth so that they may be brought before the Tribunal as soon as possible." (One of the poll questions was to establish a Climate Justice Tribunal.)
You need to stay more current on your studies in this area. In fact, a recent study just showed that GM corn CAN and DOES lead to more cancers. I would consider THAT to be a major health issue.
Monsanto is an evil, terrible company. This very topic is one reason why. It's been shown that GM is a failure, but they own 90% of the market, now, so good luck getting NON Monsanto seed. And then there is all the additional chemical enhancement that this crap needs. For that, they bleed a farmer dry. It's a nasty, disgusting thing that we have allowed big business to get away with.
Some of us have been screaming about this and all sorts of other things that we saw issues with starting in about 1980, and for trying to warn others we got called names, told we were un American, and threatened with all kinds of sanctions and persecutions for it. And when this BS started coming up, we said "Watch out for this", and were shouted down time and time again. I know how Cassandra must have felt, being the only one in Troy who wasn't fooled by the Greeks.
In Europe, you have to prove that something isn't a threat to humans BEFORE you can put it on the market. Here, you have to prove that it IS a problem before you can REMOVE it from the market. GM foods HAVE been proven to be harmful, and have been proven to be a lie for profit as well. They don't to LESS damage to the environment, they do MORE. They aren't healthier, they are deadly. It's time to take this license to kill away from big business and make them the servant instead of the master. Doing business is NOT a right to determine governmental policy, regardless of what the SCOTUS seems to think.
It is simply impossible to prove that something is totally harmless -- a good reason to eschew the so-called precautionary principle. (A principle often ignored in practice by those who preach it: few of them refuse experimental drugs when their lives are at risk.) -- The idea that GM crops cause cancer is malarkey. The vast majority of processed foods in this country and Canada contain GM products and the incidence of cancer, allowing for longer life-spans, has not budged in recent years. All food has been genetically-modified, of course, either through human intervention (using the haphazard method of conventional breeding, the mutation-inducing methods that employ nuclear radiation -- you'll find these crops at your local healthfood store, by the way --, or gene-insertion) or through Nature and her unconcern with human welfare. -- The inspiration for GM crops was found in nature, as James Watson demonstrates in his chapter on GM in DNA: The Secret of Life. Anyone confused over this issue should read this chapter. The nonsense uttered by those who claim that these crops are "deadly" (!) will quickly become apparent.
th,
you've actually polled dying GMO opponents on their participation in clinical trials? or polled terminal cancer patients on their views of GMOs?
A debate is more useful for making decisions and setting the course for society when people don't simply make things up and present them as fact.
It's also more useful when people don't make statements that are technically true but so misleading as to be clearly an attempt to deceive and confuse. There is an enormous practical, theoretical, philosophical and moral difference between the slow careful breeding of species by lifelong farmers and experts through 6 millennia, aware of their place in nature and history, and the decade-sudden domination of global land, diet and markets by 1 or 2 companies intent not on helping humanity or enhancing nature but on profit and power through the use of a radically uncertain and potentially globally devastating new experiment. Those countless generations of patient breeders bequeathed to us a heritage of thousands of unique species of domesticated plants and animals; through neglect and the industrial mindset of a few reckless engineers we have squandered that inheritance and destroyed a third of them in less than a century. GM crops have and will tremendously speed up that destruction.
GM foods have not been around long and have been common for even shorter. It’s too early—and grossly irresponsible—to claim none cause conditions that take decades to appear. It’s likely that nothing but bad news will quickly become apparent.
You could say the “inspiration” for war is found in food hunting, or the “inspiration” for rape is found in sex; certainly GMOs have roughly the same relationship to nature as those relationships. Anybody confused over that should read the story of Percy Schmeiser and a good basic ecology textbook.
J4zonian, well said. The contrast between traditional farmers and the big agribusiness needs to be stressed, as well as the effects of their work, and most importantly, their motives.
They used to use these exact same vague generalized rationalizations to promote tobacco, they used to pave school yards with asbestos...they sold us Atrazine, DDT, the miracle of the hydrogen bomb! Let's learn from our past, and recognize that we need further independently verified study of at least a decade before we release technologies into the world that we can't retract! I want the right to decide what I eat. I don't want to eat this stuff. I want the right to grow uncontaminated seed stock. I don't want my fields contaminated with your pollen. You violate my private property with your wind-borne genetically modified pollen, and it compromises my genetics, and that just ain't fair---Get it?
They stuck us with electricity, polio vaccine, telephones, ibuprofen, and the list goes on. When will it end? You haven't been breathing without a high quality air mask, I hope?
I retain my CHOICE, my free will to choose, whether I want to use all of the above. I can simply NOT BUY any of these items, they are not required for me to live...but FOOD, that is another matter entirely. We all require food, and it is criminal to inject into the food sources of so many who can't afford to choose the alternatives, technologies that may compromise their health. Label the GM food, Greg, just like cigarettes, and see what happens in the market when people are allowed to CHOOSE, rather than serve as guinea pigs for a narcissistic science.
Sometimes you can choose, but a lot of technologies MAY affect your health that you have very little control over. Hidden electromagnetic fields, sloughed off chemicals from food mixing containers and water pipes, lead in your food because a foreign laborer tossed it in his basket of exotic fruit so his day's work would weigh more and he would be paid better, and on and on. The dangers are many. They can label or not. I don't care. If they do, some will lie. And of course, if there's a bit of gm pollen in something, no one will label that. The gm labeled stuff will be cheaper. Some of the non-gm will be very expensive and will contain a higher level of pesticide residue in many cases. Of course it is nice to choose your poison.
Greg, You are absolutely correct that life is filled with dangers, lurking everywhere. You may drink Atrazine-laced water of your own making, and do so with apparent glee. You may do this while maintaining health and vigor. But what about your grandchildren? My grandfather, like so many others of his time, having nothing but the best intentions, and given the sunny information the chemical producer made public at the time, wantonly sprayed DDT around his farm. So far none of his children have been stricken with major illness, decades later, but what of the grandchildren? Two from different families suffer the effects of endometriosis, an unchecked growth of abnormal scar tissue, beginning in the reproductive organs, spreading eventually through the body cavity into the lungs. These cousins were reared some 100 miles apart, in lives generally similar. They will live their adult lives on required drug regimens with unpleasant additional side effects and with severe chronic pain. Is this related to DDT exposure somehow? Hard to prove. What is known, is that chemical exposure is often expressed through generations, with smaller residuals in later generations appearing to take effect, perhaps through DNA mutations (a different thing than "splicing"), in ways that mirror acute exposures in subtle ways. The poorly understood effects of chemicals on hormones...yes there are dangers. Is it fair, or right, to expose our grandchildren to these hidden unknowns with GMOs? Is it right to arrogantly make the choice on their behalf? Is the cure ("EASY PRODUCTIVE FARMING THROUGH GMO") worth the disease?
Sioux Rose
STEWARDESS: I applaud your patience in setting down such well-nuanced arguments for one who DEFENDS dangers and contaminants as inevitable. He apparently would see any form of regulation or EPA action (with muscles) as anathema to "freedom." All of his posts take the side of erring on the side of injury, as opposed to caution, i.e. concern for human life. I suppose you laid out your analyses for those who might listen, otherwise you were directing them at the equivalent of an inanimate pole.
No, SR, I'm all for strong regulations. Deciding what those regulations should be is the tricky part. As a farmer, I've had to deal with a lot of government regulation stuff. It's often annoying, but I know we are far better off with most regulations, than without. So I try very hard to not complain about regulations.
DDT was a serious problem for bald eagles, not so much for humans. In fact DDT was a life-saver in malarial areas. Actually, no, I do not drink atrazine with 'glee.' My well is inches from my house. I used to scrape off the old lead paint every few years and put on new. My arsenic-laden deck is about 3 feet from the well. Luckily most humans can tolerate quite a lot of crap. We've been lucky so far, but it's time for a new well. Our large gardens are near-organic. Certainly it's a good idea to limit the amount of toxins and suspicious substances that we ingest.
GR,
did you not read the article? have you not been paying attention for the last decade? GMOs cause higher pesticide use, not lower.
All right Mark, show me a study, produced by an INDEPENDENT lab, ie: not Monsanto, not a Monsanto-funded land grant university, not the USDA, the FDA, or the EPA, but a peer-reviewed study by a respected laboratory, that tests these GM foodstuffs for toxicity at exposures beyond a six month span of time, and tests not on amphibians, but mammalians. If you can report back with this information, and it shows clean, that is, no liver damage, no bladder damage, no damage to the digestive tract, no evidence of onset of chronic inflammation, and no evidence of the propensity for subsequent mutated normal cells (cancer), then you can have your last word on whether we should be eating this stuff or not. In the meantime, I say, let the Almighty Market have the last word on GMOs, because even if unethical scientists, the misinformed, the naive, the profit-mad corporatists, the government, et al. clamor to fill their plates with laboratory-fare, if given the choice through labeling laws, the vast majority of humans planet-wide would reject these foods wholesale, leaving the technology with its careless unknowns in the dust, and the Monsanto corporation without its multi-BILLIONs in annual PROFITS (that is gross revenue less the cost of doing business despite investments in technologies).
Allow me to come to WJM's defense here and provide a few links for th4377 and Mark Abram to peruse at their leisure:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/germany-bans-monsanto-s-maize
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/12/monsantos-gmo-corn-linked_n_420365.html?ref=fb
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suppressed-report-shows-cancer-link-to-gm-potatoes-436673.html
If GM food is so safe, why are European countries largely rolling back their consumption of it?
"If GM food is so safe, why are European countries largely rolling back their consumption of it?"
Because it doesn't provide any benefits for consumers or farmers and was never designed to do so.
Round Up resistant crops were Monsanto's method of extending the patent on Round Up. The crops provide a market for Round Up but were never designed for increased yield or any other useful property. It was entirely predictable that Round Up resistant weeds would develop. It was also predictable that insects would develop resistant to the Bt toxin. Plants and the insects that attack them are in a continual arms race. As soon as the insect overcomes a plant's resistance it starts to select for a new type of resistant plant which them starts selection for a new breed of insect. This is why mixed cultures are superior to monocultures.
It is criminal that Monsanto has cornered the seed market for corn and soy and displaced heritage seeds and genocidal that they are distributing terminator seeds that produce only sterile offspring.
However there is no reliable evidence that their products cause cancer or other disease and the company should not be attacked on such a spurious basis when there is ample evidence that their practices will destroy our food security.
"there is no reliable evidence that their products cause cancer"... Yet. We have to step back and think big. Bigger. Bigger still. Because there is no hard and fast evidence today does not mean there will never be any tomorrow. We need to be really clear on what the future vision could look like. This is unknown: there is no testing. We are the guinea pigs. Another vision: this is about control of the food industry. When you control food, you control the world. Think bigger. You make some great points here also: the benefits of GM do not outweigh the damages to community, environment, health risks, monopolization, poor choices of patent use, unethical practices and biopiracy.
" there is something fishy about the claim that they are forcing farmers to accept more expensive and less productive seed just because they are evil."
Not because they are evil. But because they have to post an increasing profit every quarter, so Wall Street will smile upon them and their stock price.
"How exactly does forcing farmers to buy seed that is genetically modified and less productive increase Monsanto's profits?"
If you expect to be taken seriously on this board then you'll have to avoid asking such clearly disngenuous and idiotic questions.
Any question that answers itself shows its poser to be a fool.
q
Sioux Rose
Mr. Abram: The company whose innocence you seem to be defending happens to be one of the key ones that produced Agent Orange. MANY people in Vietnam still suffer from all sorts of cancers linked with that diabolical agricultural chemical of mass destruction; and Monsanto has never paid a dime in damages to the families impacted. Meanwhile, learning nothing (for they are to agriculture what Eric Prince and his private army are to warfare) this same company has designed another chemical polymer used in the alleged "drug war" in Columbia. Again, the destruction of foliage leaving behind dangerous contaminants functions as their modus operandi. Profit is not sacred unto any god but mammon... and since this amoral company has been getting away with murder in homage to that specific god, they are in NO moral position to take ownership of 80% of seed stocks, while contaminating many of nature's originals in the process!
If we had a truly empowered world court, this company would be tried and found guilty of war crimes. "What's in YOUR cereal?"
Patenting, Mark, its all about patenting the seeds, the genetic materials. Not only has this technology ushered in a wave of firsts on the planet in terms of inter-species co-mingling (plant + fungus, plant + fish, etc.), but it has also introduced precedents in the legal framework involving the patenting of lifeforms heretofore unknown. Farmers in the US and Canada, and likely other countries as well are being preyed upon by heavy hitting Monsanto lawyers for patent infringement simply because pollen drift contaminates bordering fields with GM genetics. These stories are well-documented. Why did Monsanto seek to patent the technology, almost as soon as it was birthed? To own and control the seed bank. When a corporation has a monopoly, it can charge whatever it wants for what it holds, especially if every last person on the planet requires it: FOOD. This corporation could not have patented traditionally bred or hybridized seed. It could have maintained proprietary rights, but not patent ownership. GM has changed the legal landscape here. So what is a farmer to do? All it takes is one farm in a 100 mile radius to be targeted for patent infringement, and be bankrupted by legal fees, and a court battle, for most neighboring farmers to quickly fall into lock-step with a freshly signed Monsanto contract (including gag-order clause) clutched in their tired hands. See, Monsanto uses these contracts to prevent farmers from executing the millenia old right of saving their own seed, and when a non-Monsanto farmer who saves his/her own seed sees their work contaminated with corrupted genetics, and then on top of that is sued in court for hundreds of thousands of dollars, most just give up! It would be much harder to assert market dominance the old way (hybridizing), if not for the altered genetic markers that are expressed in every cell of the engineered plants, being there to be found by Monsanto "Scientist Cops" who often violate private property to assess so-called "theft". Why does a successful corporation like Monsanto require such neanderthal legal tactics to preserve its place in the market, if it does not seek total domination (I'd say a 90% hold on seed houses is pretty damn close)?
stewardess, nicely argued. Patenting of seeds and genetic material is an abomination. It's unethical and possibly criminal. It should never have been allowed. In fact, it was not allowed automatically - it just managed to sneak through by deception. The criminality of this whole operation that aims to control the food supply is mind-boggling.
Mark, I would differ with you on several issues.
First, neither myself nor my wife have an alergy to corn per se, however, we were both sickened by star link corn many years ago when it got into the food chain and used in the manufacturing of corn chips. Now, someone of your persuasion would argue that it was animal feed getting into the human food chain, but even in my younger years growing up on a dairy farm I've eaten cow corn with no problems. You may believe my stomach cramps were "marginal", but at the time neither my wife nor I felt that way.
Second, when a crop is designed to contain a minute amount of poison, it is "inherently" dangerous. One or two ears may not pose any problem, but what about the processing which may concentrate such? Of feeding of the same to very young children during growth spruts?
As you stated, you're not willing to believe that Monsanto is "a bad bunch", thus no amount of testimony is apt to sway you. As with ANY 'for profit' corporation, the first directive is to make a profit, no excuses, don't tell us about the health of citizens, or the environment, or anti-trust, just make a profit.
Last, the cross pollination with non-intended crops or plants poses a bigger risk than the GM crop itself, in my opinion. This will become even MORE critical with the introduction of pharm-crops which the EPA has approved. What if local grasses start to cause wild animals to become lathargic or aggresive or whatever, because they've cross pollinated with a pharm-crop of rice or wheat? IF these crops are not dangerous as you and Monsanto claim, why is there such resistence on testing and labeling? just curious
It's a bit more complicated than that, and both sides need to understand the science behind GE. This is what gets most people: It's not the Roundup Ready resistance or the transgenics (adding animal to plant). It's in the application of the 'promoter', the flag that allows the cell of the plant to recognize (use) the new gene. In plants, the promoter is plant based, allowing the gene transfer to move seamlessly (plants would not normally find a fish gene). But in Genetic Engineering, they don't use a plant promoter (takes too long to find it and time is money) so they use - Viruses! Why? Think of what a virus is: they are highly active, nothing can stop them once they have found a new host, and they can integrate their genetic information into the DNA of the host cell, multiply, infect other cells and multiply again. This is not a Stephen King novel, this is real. And this is why SO many people are against GMO. It's a smoking gun. And it can't be switched off or destroyed once it's out there, so you had better be REAL sure that GMO crops are good for humans.
"...the whole popular obsession with "GM" food, is the claim that "GM" food, just by being "GM", somehow poses "serious health risks." This is simply not true."
Fine. You eat it. Eat my share of it, too. I don't want it.
Sioux Rose
MARK: The most arrogant part of your argument is this idea that there are no KNOWN health risks. This is a very new technology. Not enough time has been given to DEMONSTRATE the health effects. Think of Thalidimide! And please don't patronize me, or this forum by suggesting that cross-pollination is just a variation on the bio-engineering theme. I happen to have more confidence in Gaia's program of trial and era, one that's spanned many many millions of years to arrive at the precise genetic combinations we thrive upon... then guys in lab coats with 6 years of science training who get to take apart gene strands and put ones from animals together with ones from the plant kingdom. Recombinant DNA, what fun! Let's all strip the codes of life apart and pretend we can put them back together again the way they were!
You can say it's unscientific, and perhaps it is... but Edgar Cayce who healed many with considered-to-be incurable ailments spoke about a time centuries ago when the Atlanteans also messed with the genetic codes. Those images from mythology showing half human-half horse portrayals are linked with this era, traces of its past. Cayce also stated back in the l940's (when his readings were popular, many thousands of which have been recorded and preserved at The Assocation for Research and Enlightenment, based in Virginia Beach, VA.) that many Atlanteans were reincarnating in America and bringing their genetic technology along with them.
An astrological event of some significance took place in Taurus, the sign of earth, and where Venus "rules" back in l940 with a recurrence in 2000. In l940 the Nazis were eagerly engaged in seeking to break genetic codes to play god by designing what they wished to create. In 2000 the money-rules Supreme Court granted copyright protection to those FOR-PROFIT companies that had mapped the DNA molecule. Once again, a certain "control group" sought to return to the goal centered on a control of life from the ground up, from its most minute and necessary forms and foodstuffs. LIFE BELONGS TO NO ONE. Slavery is now being practiced on the Natural World through a co-optation of all of Gaia's resources. She, the great Mother is witnessing the wonton destruction of a great many of her "children" in the form of species extinction occuring at an alarming rate.
With this type of "ethos" guiding, no company nor person should DARE to put together (nor tear asunder) what Creative Sources have lovingly put together. According to Caycle, this was one of the central reasons why the elementals stood up in rebellion and the continents shifted leaving that advanced civilization under the waves. We are courting a similar fate. The hubris of the human mind when it thinks it knows and then begins to deconstruct the codes of LIFE that have been patiently and lovingly assembled down the centuries, is precisely that mindset that would cause nature to show human beings who's really THE boss. Sterile seeds, Monsanto's specialty portray what happens when the sacredness goes missing from the equations the scientists cum alchemists rely upon.
Rose;
I haven't heard you ranting for awhile. Thought you were sick or otherwise occupied.
Good to see you back.
Sioux Rose, great post. I love your drawing attention to the sacredness of seeds and the insanity and arrogance of actually developing a technology to make them sterile. What would stop such "scientists" from coming up with a technology that would make humans sterile, and to target certain ethnic groups selectively?
Sioux Rose
ALCYON: Have you considered this: back in 2000 I attended The Whole Life Expo, a remarkably gorgeous woman over 50 gave a lecture to market her book, entitled, "Hormone Heresy." What she wisely pointed out was the following, that every stage of a woman's life was being not only medically managed, but conceived as a disease!
1. Pills for menstruation/cramps in teenage girls
2. Pills to block fertility (birth control) in women of reproductive age
3. Treatments to turn back ON fertility
4. Drugs to "treat" menopause
In addition, about half the women over 50 in America are routinely prescribed hysterectomies where their uteri are cut out, as if Creator made that many "faulty parts."
I understand sperm counts ARE down, and lots of young women turning their bodies into big pharma's personal laboratories now are essentially infertile. Yuppie types get to "try to get pregnant" with the help of big pharma/big med. So the Monsanto-style inroad into sterile human seeds is NOT exactly a sci-fi premise!
And thanks for the nod!
Sioux, you made my day with the transition from human fertility to Monsanto seed infertility. Monsanto bought the company that introduced the concept of sterile seeds. I don't know if they have perfected this technology yet. For whatever reason, they are not currently marketing them.
Excellent post, Sioux.
I believe it was Black Elk who said, "The only things that work well are the things that work the way Nature works."
Have you seen the documentary "Food, Inc."? If you haven't, may I highly recommend you rent it. It covers the entire breadth of issues regarding our current "food" system, from the horrific conditions at meat plants to GM crops to the ever-revolving door between government and industry. They spend a lot of time discussing Monsanto and their attempts to patent Life and monopolize the world of food.
Sioux Rose
SEVENTH: I noticed someone (you?) recommended this film in another thread. I'll see if I can find it. Because I use dial-up it takes FOREVER for me to download items from You-tube. If the writer's conference I am splurging to attend next month gets me a literary agent, I'll probably upgrade to wireless. Whatever the technology, I am always "left behind," but then the entire built-in-obsolescence creed keeps everyone racing to keep up, and what a world of waste is created as a result!
Thank you for acknowledging my post. I sometimes feel I go out on a limb bringing the work/insights/analysis of esoteric authorities into this forum.
SIOUX,
Check your local video store. No need to watch it online. It was made into DVD a few months ago.
And of course, by local, I mean your locally-owned video store, not Blockbuster. My local one had it the week it came out.
Here, you have to prove that it IS a problem before you can REMOVE it from the market."
This is playing Russian Roulette with our survival, of course. But we've got our media to calm us down, as it tells us "this is this!" while pointing at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
At this point it doesn't really matter if there are studies supporting or refuting GM claims for safety and higher yield: the impulse for its implementation continues to be human recklessness and idealistic excuses for costly research programs. Biotechnology is fatally devoted to its conviction that 'gaming' the botanical system we depend on for nourishment can only be positive in the long run. They will not be satisfied until they run into a serious catastrophe such as, for example, a vital cereal crop failing for a couple of consecutive seasons without any significant natural alternative available to replace it.
Farmers can't fight Monsanto, et al on their own... There needs to be much more pressure from the larger population, continuously and assertively applied.
Dear Mr. Goodman:
Let's look at these market phenomena from the POV of Monsanto, who makes these decisions:
1. "GM was planted on more acres, overall pesticide use went up, not down."
That's two boosts in market revenue: ++
2. "GM crops ... had lower yields"
So more product has to be bought to fill the same market: +.
3. the cost of GM seed continues to rise.
+
4. finding non-GM seed is difficult, considering Monsanto controls roughly 90% of the corn and soy genetics in the U.S.
Big +.
5. The contamination of non-GM and organic alfalfa . . . seem of little consequence.
These have great consequence, but both benefit Monsanto: they hold patent, and this ensures near monopoly. Big +!
6. "Feeding the world? GM will not do it"
Not a column on my spreadsheet: Monsanto does not hold itself responsible to feed the entire world, only its stockholders.
7. "Still, Monsanto bills itself as a leader in global sustainability, ignoring the fact that true sustainability cannot be achieved when your only driving goal is the next quarterly profit report."
Not exactly. Monsanto recognizes that billing itself as a leader in sustainability helps the next profit report.
8. "The world stands a better chance of feeding itself by using and improving upon farming methods that have been relied upon for centuries."
Yes, but none of this supports Monsanto. In fact, the fact that other methods are more viable and sustainable undercuts Monsanto's market, and if we can find a way to stop these from being sustainable (like eliminate entire populations of seed by developing non-reproducing strains of plants whose pollen blows in the air) we will.
9. So, why do so many continue to believe, to have faith in the story, when the evidence is against them?
See above.
[Thanks for the article. Those of us who hunt and gather our food as it scampers, shrink-wrapped, though supermarket shelves could use the wake up. ]
Snippet: "University research was shifted almost exclusively to biotech crops."
Major research-oriented universities are virtual extensions of industry. More than 40% of research grant money for scientific research in such universities goes to the university administration for "overhead". This is instrumental in guiding research in the direction of industrial interests.
Yes and why do you think that is? Because government funding is drying up! The FIRST thing governments cut is independent research and they positively encourage the kind of collusion you complain about.
But heaven forbid that we charge everyone an extra dollar a year to fund independent research....oh no!!
First, I'd like to thank Mark Abram for accepting the inevitable abuse. Second, I'd like to thank Mark Abram for making many good points. The hysteria of many left-wingers on this issue makes many conservatives feel superior to the often pathetic "science" wherein much of this fear emanates. Many gm fear-mongers think America's farmers (myself included) are hick idiots who want to buy expensive seed that produces less and causes lots of problems. Now, most importantly, CDers, don't look at both sides of an issue. It might cause a brain hemorrhage (or fart).
Excellent post.
My Father is a farmer. And guess what, the GM crops generally work better.
That's why he uses them.
What most people on here do not realise is that you ALREADY get the chemicals in your food from the pesticides and herbicides that "organic" growers are already allowed to use! And those chemicals are not targeted to the specific pest of the plant in question.
Personally, I don't care if the corn-borer becomes resistant to the GM resistent strain of corn just like I don't care that every year a new virus evolves to evade our latest vaccine....that's why we, as intelligent species continue to work to stay ahead of it.
Sure we need controls. We CERNTAINLY need to do something about Monsanto's monopoly and attempt to control so much of the food supply. We have some very good anti-trust laws that it would be nice if someone got a backbone and started using. We also CERTAINLY need to make sure the crops are safe for human consumption.
But I have a BIG problem when "organic" or even just the normal crops are being held to a much lower chemical presence standard than GM crops. And THAT is the situation which exists today in Europe and I consider it unfair. Let's raise the standard of ALL food to the heights that the GM growers have to satisfy!
I don't know any organic farmer that uses chemical herbicides or fertilizer. None. The standards are so high here that if we ever crossed the line we would lose our certification.
No one wants to call you a hick idiot (unless you have a subconscious craving for enemies), but your remarks about "conservatives [feeling] superior to pathetic science" are telling. Of course they feel superior... people who think they know everything often do. That also explains why human history is a never-ending list of follies and outlandish mistakes.
You can call me a left-winger if it makes you feel better... I prefer not to be located at any specific place on the scale, though. All I know is that multiple strains of seeds and the diversity that nature provides is indisputably better than engineered agriculture. Indisputable because it has managed itself perfectly over millions of years without human interference. Whether you respect the pathetic discipline of science is irrelevant... farmers are very important to us now, but they weren't always vital to our survival. After things get tough and the population crashes, not to mention the ecosystem being compromised, we may well see a return to foraging and home gardening. We will all be farmers then, and sure as shit it will come as a result of tinkering with the natural order.
(By the way, us on the 'left' have a pretty good idea of the other side of issues... it's only shoved in our faces every second of the day thanks to PR and media hacks. Even if we want to avoid hearing your scatter-brained opinions, we can't).
There are people who think of me as a far left-wing liberal.
No, Greg, I, as a non-partisan human being desiring a safe, peaceful future for my son, merely wish there were ANY reputable science on the safety and long term human health and environmental implications of GM technologies. Believing the corporate propaganda means you wear a tinfoil hat of your own making. Why don't you address the issue of the fact that if you and I were neighbors, your GM pollen would drift onto my open-pollinated seed-crop fields, and contaminate my work IRREVOCABLY. What if I stood at the fence line, aiming a high power irrigation gun loaded with non-Round-up herbicide (fatal to "Round-Up Ready" techno crops) onto YOUR fields, laying waste to your crop? I'd be quickly arrested, sued, fined, jailed, etc., and you'd quickly lay claim to my assets to recover your damages. Well, some day, enough of us traditional breeders are going to stand up with legal fees donated by "hysterical left-wingers" and come after you all for violation of private property rights, and the ensuing damages for loss of livlihood, lost wages, lost years of development work...lost markets. Have you looked at both sides of that fence?
stewardess, I would love to see *that* legal fight, hopefully televised. Irrespective of the result of that fight, it would be an opportunity to see (and show) where most of humanity stands on this issue.