EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A World of Benefits from Biotechnology? For Whom?
When the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) met in Chicago last week they were, no doubt, elated to hear that the U.S. State Department would be aggressively confronting critics of agricultural biotechnology.
Wouldn't you think the State Department might have more pressing issues than carrying water for Monsanto and the rest of the biotechnology industry?
Jose Fernandez, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs noted that the State Department was ready to take on the naysayers. In addition to confronting the critics, Fernandez stated they would be building alliances (presumably with the biotech industry and foreign governments), anticipating roadblocks to acceptance and highlighting the science.
Highlighting the science, that's rich, to this point the only "science" they can highlight is the fact that nearly 100% of the commercially available genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide are engineered to be insecticidal, resistant to herbicide application, or both.
The State Department and its allies promote GM as a way for the developing world to feed itself, but the four predominant GM crops (corn, soy, cotton and canola) are not specifically human food crops, they are used for animal feed, biofuel, fiber and processed food.
They would like us to believe that the "science" will deliver more nutritious food, higher yielding crops, drought resistant crops and an end to world hunger. These claims however, are not based in science, but only on " the promise", or "the hope" of GM doing what its supporters claim it can do.
The science, or lack thereof, that we should take note of is the glaring lack of regulation of GM crops and the serious questions about their safety. Nina Fedoroff, Science and Technology Adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted "We preach to the world about science-based regulations but really our regulations on crop biotechnology are not yet science-based."
We should not be surprised that the U.S. State Department is again, on the stump, promoting biotech crops. It would be difficult to say how long the the U.S. government has been aggressively promoting biotechnology, specifically GM crops, but certainly since the commercialization of GM soy in 1996.
In 2004 the State Department launched a website which was part of a State Department initiative to "encourage broader adoption and acceptance of biotechnology in the developing world", according to Deborah Malac, then chief of the Biotechnology and Textile Trade Policy Division of the State Department.
USDA is also actively promoting biotechnology with a website that supports bringing biotechnology to the "worldwide marketplace".
Even the U.S. Senate is getting into the act, promoting, even mandating GM technology to the developing world. Senate Bill 384, The Global Food Security Act, would amend the Foreign Assistance act of 1961 to read "Agricultural research carried out under this act shall include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including GM technology".
While USDA assures us that the products of biotechnology and the chemicals they depend on are safe, scientists within USDA, the State Department and the Administration question that view.
So why does the U.S. government promote the interests of the biotechnology industry over the best interests of peoples health, the environment and the food security of the developing world?
Easy answer, the biotechnology industry has a high profit margin and they know how to influence government policy.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
56 Comments so far
Show AllI thought it wouldn't hurt (too much) to point out an opposing argument. GM foods do have the potential to do a great deal of good. For instance, hundreds of thousands of children go blind every year from a lack of vitamin A. GM rice could be modified to have this and other vitamins. There's most always two sides to the story. Sure, some of the focus of gm is on profits, but many involved with this have a far more charitable outlook.
I don't know Greg but if we had all the good stuff you mentioned before GM, then we don't need GM to get it all back and more. The only thing GM could possibly be good for is genetically modifying bugs to excrete carbon negative light sweet crude oil but even that idea is questionable not to mention the lab and maintenance costs that would come into question. As far as GM rice is concerned, screw that. Thousands of healthy varieties of rice all over Asia have been squashed thanks to governments backing GM against the farmers' well being. We owe it to the farmers all over the world victimized by GM to terminate GM.
A corporations only interest is in profit, any other activity is just public relations to ensure the corporate strategy to make profits.
The GM foods strategy is to own the plants that make food. Farmers in North America and around the world are severely restricted from reproducing the GM plants. They MUST buy seeds only from Monsanto, for example.
If GM plants were public domain I could be more sympathetic to your view.
If we wanted the federal government to do more of this research that would be fine with me. However, our capitalist system has corporations do most of this and they must make a profit. Personally, I think patent law has moved too far toward corporate interests. I believe many overlook the fact that the people who work for these companies do not do their work 100% for a paycheck or moneyed interests.
That vitamin rice pipe dream is just a ridiculous fantasy, a poster child for genetic mutilation of food that does not work and has not been put into production. You'd have to eat about nine bowls a day of gmo "golden rice" in order to get enough vitamin A. You can actually get enough vitamin A from a handful of chopped parsley sprinkled on food. People who go blind from lack of vitamin A are in need of food. Enough natural rice, protein and vegetables would prevent blindness from malnutrition.
Monsanto has no plans to grow food to supply communities suffering malnutrition in the world. Monsanto is a maker of consumer products, and has publicly stated that their mission is to make money, and that safety issues are up to our government to determine and regulate.
The only way to prevent hunger in the world is through food sovereignty, getting the food supply out of the hands of for-profit multinational corporations and into peoples farms and gardens. The only way to face future population growth without turning the earth into a dust bowl is through organic growing methods, growing things with respect for the climate in which you are planting, companion planting, growing things according to what water supplies you have, using biological controls. Everything in our farm policy protects big agribusiness and defeats organic and small family farms.
Sioux Rose
BLISS: Great post.
The article relates that biotech producers make CLAIMS to safety of their product, so let's consider that conceit in light of the following:
1. The Supreme Court/US goverment is in hock to the corporations. It acts as their spokesperson, hardly protecting the people from the onslaught of faulty products!
2. There is now NO meaningful regulation around product safety, coal drilling, oil drilling, big pharma cocktails, or how the nation's finances are pooled in with gambler's high stakes products.
3. After 911 "the authorities" said it was perfectly safe to breathe the NYC air.
4. As per the oil geyser, once again, claims to safety were made prior to reality stepping in to change some minds around.
5. Given that bio-technology is a new field (and please, shills, no references to plant pollination techniques as these did not put chicken genes together with potato genes, and then some), there IS no body of evidence from which to determine its so-called safety.
6. There were other articles on this topic published on CD that actually showed piss poor numbers; that these "miracle plants" are NOT delivering on their false/advertised promises.
7. It's not only not nice to fool Mother Nature, a PRICE is eventually paid in spades for NOT using natural methods. Short cuts always backfire! Mother nature has been experimenting with her plant base for millennia, whereas guys in lab coats MIGHT have 7 years of academic studies to their "credit." What hubris to unravel the very (organic) BANKS of time!
And to those who spoke of food distribution, that IS the key point. How much do Americans throw away? And why are so many fast food and other restaurants still super sizing every meal in a nation that's morbidly obese? The sheer weight alone is one reason why people want not only cars, but supersized vehicles in a consumer culture that increasingly courts disaster. 21st century capitalism's favorite incentive.
When it comes to that oil geyser that continues to spew into the ocean day after day, week after week, with no end in sight, I wonder if this is the end of the world. How long can it go on before it gets into the estuaries and then into the rivers, the aquifers and all water supplies, and once those are contamined, will we have any water for drinking, for irrigation of crops? Maybe 2012 was an overshoot. I wonder if this is it.
The oil blow out is VERY BAD. However, it is NOT a world wide catastrophe. More than anything, it's just SAD.
It is not a world wide catastrophe? Oil spills, leaks, shortages, etc... are always bound to be world wide catastrophes since we do live in an economy that is almost completely tied to fossil fuels. Watch out for rising gas prices.
The short term trend on gas and crude is down. Personally, I wish gas prices would go through the roof because of hugely increased taxation. Maybe then we would use a bit less and not have to drill every goddamn inch of the planet.
Greg, there are other BENIGN ways to get sufficient amounts of Vitamin A and other necessary vitamins!
Hey, don't tell me, I know that. Tell the hundreds of thousands of kids who go blind.
We have heard endless speculative promises about the could and would of GM engineering; not only is the brutal array of chemical applications expensive, the yields are no better than non-GM yields. As far as the promise of feeding the world, well, about 25,000,000 people die of starvation and the medical complications associated with starvation. There is plenty of food, it is not be distributed in ways to ensure that all have adequate access to it. The chemical regime of GM foods in developing countries is beyond the economic reach of those small farmers. As far as Greg R. May's charitable outlook, we all always rationalize the best of intentions, but the consequence of GM engineering is dubious at best, but hey, monsantos stock is up.
"As far as Greg R. May's charitable outlook, we all always rationalize the best of intentions, but the consequence of GM engineering is dubious at best, but hey, monsantos stock is up."
I understand that you're trying to be polite but Greg R does not deserve the consideration. He's just another indtustry tool sent here to deflect criticism.
q
Personally, I don't care for the arrogance of know-it-all types. I have opinions. I don't pretend to know the best choices for hardly any technological choices. I'm just a farmer who uses this technology. I've never been paid by Monsanto or any other such company. I've never purchased stock in any such companies. To me, one of the biggest problems with those on the far right and far left, are their utter certainties of what is right and what is wrong. Whenever someone speaks of absolute truths, red flags wave so briskly in my mind, that it's hard for me to pay attention.
"I'm just a farmer who uses this technology. I've never been paid by Monsanto or any other such company."
Ok, so Monsanto isn't paying you but you will keep paying Monsanto to let you experiment with one set of GMO seeds and when those plants expire thanks to altering the seeds so that you will have to buy them more frequently. What kind of a farmer would want to be forced into purchasing seeds more frequently?
"Personally, I don't care for the arrogance of know-it-all types. I have opinions."
"Whenever someone speaks of absolute truths, red flags wave so briskly in my mind, that it's hard for me to pay attention."
You're kidding, no?
I am NOT kidding. 99% of farmers have purchased all their seed corn for many decades. We pay for what works. If Monsanto raises their prices too high, I will go back to regular hybrid corn and regular soybeans. Monsanto has been pushing their prices to the limit the last few years. They do enough research to know just how far to go to keep most farmers buying and to maximize their profits. Sometimes it irritates me, but that's their right.
It has been brought up that corn is overused in the manufacturing of almost every junk food that is packaged.
"Sometimes it irritates me, but that's their right."
Then please tell that to the millions of farmers in India who committed suicide and try telling that to people who will get arrested for rising up and protesting GMO in India should that bill I mentioned in this thread passes.
Biotechnology* is actually a useful and interesting field that includes more than just the GMO plague. The headline is misleading. Sloppiness in language usage is causing a lot of trouble these days and leads to serious misunderstandings. One could say "Biotechnology = good, Monsanto = bad", but every generalization has qualifiers and exceptions. It's a complex world, but we're smart enough to keep learning as we go.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology
As the author of the article points out, the biotech brochure is always about "the future", "the promise", "ending starvation", all that jazz, but the only things really available and in production are food with pesticide in every cell, and food genetically mutilated with bacteria genes to withstand endless sluicing with herbicides. Neither pesticides nor herbicides are good for human consumption, but Monsanto keeps making promises, and our government keeps catering to Monsanto at the expense of family farms growing real, organic food with sustainable methods. It's like a car maker saying "we will have hybrid automobiles that run on rain drops and sun beams, that will massage you while you drive, with windshields that will cure blindness, but those aren't ready yet, so here's our Edsel. Buy one. It has a good price."
I often wonder what horrendous tragedy will bring about the end of the biotech era.
No, I think it's like Bliss Doubt saying, " we will all farm organically with rain drops and sun beams massaging us while we plant, hoe, hoe some more... with so many vitamins that we will never become ill," but not everyone is in love with the back breaking work involved. And this statement was written by a fellow who has spent thousands of hours hoeing, weeding, picking rocks...
It doesn't always have to be back breaking contrary to your painting it as such. Furthermore, you could get a few people to work with you so that it is far less back breaking.
Doesn't it hurt your mind day and night that relying on such short cuts is harming people and the planet? All this "easy" farming for profits has also led to the obesity epidemic and this has to reverse.
Depending on definitions, anyone alive could be said to be harming people and the planet. I think I do as well as or better than the average person. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I don't buy the theory that our modern farming methods lead to obesity. If one overeats or relies too heavily on sugar or fats for calories, they will likely gain weight unless they get enough exercise. We are so lucky to have such a wide cornucopia of food options. No one has to buy burgers and fries, or pre-packaged whatever. This is an area where the old conservative argument of 'taking personal responsibility' should be front and center, numero uno, in the obesity debate. Maybe we need to bring back home economics in high school.
"I don't buy the theory that our modern farming methods lead to obesity."
Surely you jest. You are aware of all the high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and other chemicals designed to keep the food "fresh" upon packaging and shipping that lead to obesity, no?
"We are so lucky to have such a wide cornucopia of food options."
Horse feathers ! I suggest you take a trip around the world and find out for yourself the wide varieties of healthy foods were pushed off the market thanks to GMO. Rice would never make people fat in the past and there were thousands of varieties that used to exist all throughout Asia. Nowadays, all you get is a few hundred at the most and that too is changing.
"No one has to buy burgers and fries, or pre-packaged whatever."
True but how are people supposed to accomplish that when there are fewer healthy local food markets near them? That's not all. I suggest you read this article on the fat trap and see just how pervasive it all is.
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i19trap.htm
Perhaps I live in some fortunate, idylic place. I have unbelievably diverse food choices available to me here in SE MN.
Wow, what a callous remark ! First throw us to the corporate wolves and then invoke the "personal responsibility" mantra ! Before we can bring back home economics to high school, we first need to stop public schools from closing. Home schooling in private or charter schools? FAT chance !
what do you mean "you could get a few people to work with you" ?? Why don't YOU want to do the work yourself?
Why does it seem the left wing purists on CD always want others to do the actual back breaking work? Goodness...can't have the lefties do any actual field work...who will then type purist responses about how evil GMO seeds are???
How is it that righties like you lie about your opposition against government and yet you rely on them to subsidize your dogmatic agenda? What is wrong with people working together? Cornfed Limbaugh dittoheads and Obamabots like you need to stop being anti-socialist and learn to accept intelligent thinking. You trailer trash righties know nothing about hard work and labor.
Good response Jennifer. cman2 is another corporate troll on this forum.
Your rhetoric is outdated Greg R. Sustainable organic farming uses modern methods, and smarter methods than your poison plants and herbicides, but I know you wouldn't want to be caught knowing about them.
Right on Greg. I agree with you
As I read through past debates between science and religion along with science gone wrong such as on GM, I begin to wonder why the religious elites on the Far Right are totally silent on the latest moves by Big Agri to go aggressively pro-GM. I will have more to say on science and religion later but I shall begin with GMO. GMO is a direct violation of the Ten Commandments. The commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery" is what I refer to. I know that it originally referred to sex but GMO is a perfect example of the dictionary definite of adulterate and some "farmers" whose only interest is profit over quality driven production are going GMO. I have a bad feeling that Big Religion is getting what it really wants from bad "science" of GMO and hoping that we don't find out. Mind controlling foods from GMO can't be ruled out
god help us...
Jennifer, you hilarious nut. I think you're right. When I was a kid I could never figure out how the word "adultery" related to marital infidelity, but I realize now that it does refer to contaminating the patriarchal genetic family line with interloper genes. Of course in biblical days they probably thought of it as interloper blood in the blood line. In any case, they knew that if a new baby looked a lot like the neighbor guy, something was adulterated.
Thanks for a great laugh.
No problem. I wonder what they would have thought of GM had it existed back when 10 commandments was created. Biology is not my forte but your reference to interloper genes looks interesting. :-)
I can only say that in the era in which we are living, the last Pope was suspicious of genetic modification.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/popewarns.cfm
The new, corporate friendly pontiff, Pope Ratz, likes gmo just fine.
The other two "children of the book" sects, Judaism and Islam, have declared that gmo foods are okay as, respectively, kosher and halal. I read one comment on the "ask a jew" website, which said that nobody can prove, even if pig genes are in a cabbage, that those genes render the food unkosher. Strange rationale, if you ask me, but I guess if genetic modification was not specifically listed as unkosher in the Torah, it isn't verboten. People who follow kosher dietary law are faithful to what is written, and never try to explain it or support it in any way, at least in my experience.
I have spoken to hindus, immigrants from India, who think the idea of animal genes inserted into plants is revolting. I'm with them!
Of course, Judaeochristianity holds that God is made in the image of man, right? Or is it the other way around?
If you think that is bad enough, I have more bad news. In India, a bill to put non-GMO people not only out of business but also behind bars if they question the "scientific community" on GMO is already in the works with Monsanto being the mastermind behind it.
http://www.groundreport.com/Health_and_Science
/GMO-seeds-to-kill/2921692
The US government and agri-businesses are watching this real closely and they know that a corrupt enough government there just might pass it. This bill in India would make every GM apologist blush.
Bullsh*t. I know nothing of this bill, but it is all about corporations and corrupt governments. It has zilch to do with gm or technology. I remember Oprah getting sued by Ag interests a few years back. These kinds of evil legislation are not about science, they're about money.
I read the website and it has everything to do with questioning GM. Big government meddling for the corporate interests.
You know nothing of this bill, but you say "bullshit!" to the commenter who brought it up?
Why not look it up genius? People are protesting in huge numbers in India, demanding the arrest of their Minister of Science and Technology for proposing this law.
They still have democracy in India. Maybe they'll defeat it.
Hey Maxpayne,
I read the article you linked.
"If the bill is passed a law and Section 63 of BRAI comes into force, any person doubting the safety of bt-Brinjal ‘without evidence or scientific record’ can be pushed behind the bars"
And every time science shows the dangers and the unexpected outcomes of genetically modified organisms, Monsanto just screams louder than the scientists, "poor testing methods, bad science!". Monsanto has a permanently retained team of 70 lawyers to sue people and to hound people. Monsanto withdraws funding of biotech research at universities if the research results are not to Monsanto's liking, and then they slander the researchers into obscurity.
Perhaps fortunately for us, the rest of the world is not as uninformed and apathetic as the American peopel about food issues:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_6012.cfm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20196.cfm
It breaks my heart that they're messing with eggplant because I enjoy eating it so much. As usual, it's Bt bacteria genes they're using to mutilate the eggplant and cause it to have pesticide in every cell.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1126.cfm
Monsanto will do anything to shove its way into new markets. Silencing opposition is critical to its success. Monsanto thinks it can just buy the silence of the masses by paying off a few elected officials in India and you're right, it's a dangerous precedent.
There is a considerable amount of misinformation on display in the comments, comprised of half-truths, ignorance, linked to some underlying conspiracy theory.
Here is a link for you to clear up some of the misconceptions.
http://www.biofortified.org/2010/05/ten-bad-reasons/
There is no question that government needs to do a better job of regulation, not just in Biotechnology but across the board, but remember Biotechnology is not a product but rather a method.
To summarize your article, we already have a lot of bad stuff so let's just pile on another load and look the other way. Surely you jest. Organic is more like open source software while GMO is more like closed source software. If GMO really means freedom and health, then why would a government in a democratic nation such as India go through so much trouble passing restrictions against protesting GMO? Two words for GMO, HORSE FEATHERS !
" If GMO really means freedom and health, then why would a government in a democratic nation such as India go through so much trouble passing restrictions against protesting GMO?"
If faith based stupidity doesn't work for those corporate authoritarians, then they resort to calling for fascist measures. Like Gandhi would say, "First the ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win". I hope those Indians fight it out there. I can't imagine USAns even trying. Most Americans are numb in thinking like Greg R.
Just another troll out to call the truth a "conspiracy theory".
There are no theories of conspiracy given among the comments. There are incidences and truths.
"...remember Biotechnology is not a product but rather a method."
Biotechnology is a method of creating consumer products. If Monsanto didn't privately use biotechnology to create products to sell, while publicly parading as saviors of the poor and starving, while in reality suing farmers out of business over Monsanto's own pollen drift, all the while buying government policy here and around the world, people might say nicer things about the company.
Many thousands of farmers in India have committed suicide because GMO has ruined their possibility of making a living wage to support their families. Does this evoke ANY compassion? Have we become a nation of monsters that consider this country to be "proud" that we can kill every living being on this planet, many times over?
Farmer suicides were more common than usual in the US during the 'farm crisis' in the mid 80s. It had nothing to do with gm. I'm sure that some suicides in India resulted from increased debt from the higher cost of gm seed. However, if you believe that all or most of these suicides are mainly due to gm seed, then I feel sorry for your limited rationality.
4,500 American farmer suicides in the 1980's? I don't think so.
I love the out of context cherry picking the author does.
From the article:
Nina Fedoroff, Science and Technology Adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted "We preach to the world about science-based regulations but really our regulations on crop biotechnology are not yet science-based."
What he left out.
Nina Fedoroff, a special adviser on science and technology to the U.S. State Department, which promotes GMO adoption overseas, said even though she is confident that biotech crops are ultimately safe and highly beneficial for agriculture and food production, an improved regulatory framework could help boost confidence in the products.
"We preach to the world about science-based regulations but really our regulations on crop biotechnology are not yet science-based," said Fedoroff in an interview.
Thanks for your effort. At the moment I'm feeling weary arguing for science, against anti-gm religion. Truth is always difficult and mysterious. Some pretend everything is simple and easy. Black and white. Good and bad. You're either with us or against us. I'm gonna take a break from this bs.