EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Food Crisis is Not About a Shortage of Food
The food crisis of 2008 never really ended, it was ignored and
forgotten. The rich and powerful are well fed; they had no food crisis,
no shortage, so in the West, it was little more than a short lived sound
bite, tragic but forgettable. To the poor in the developing world,
whose ability to afford food is no better now than in 2008, the hunger
continues.
Hunger can have many contributing factors; natural disaster,
discrimination, war, poor infrastructure. So why, regardless of the
situation, is high tech agriculture always assumed to be the only the
solution? This premise is put forward and supported by those who would
benefit financially if their “solution” were implemented. Corporations
peddle their high technology genetically engineered seed and chemical
packages, their genetically altered animals, always with the “promise”
of feeding the world.
Politicians and philanthropists, who may mean well, jump on the high
technology band wagon. Could the promise of financial support or
investment return fuel their apparent compassion?
The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) an initiative of
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation
supposedly works to achieve a food secure and prosperous Africa. While
these sentiments and goals may be philanthropy at its best, some of the
coalition partners have a different agenda.
One of the key players in AGRA, Monsanto, hopes to spread its
genetically engineered seed throughout Africa by promising better
yields, drought resistance, an end to hunger, etc. etc. Could a New
Green Revolution succeed where the original Green Revolution had failed?
Or was the whole concept of a Green Revolution a pig in a poke to begin
with?
Monsanto giving free seed to poor small holder farmers sounds great, or
are they just setting the hook? Remember, next year those farmers will
have to buy their seed. Interesting to note that the Gates Foundation
purchased $23.1 million worth of Monsanto stock in the second quarter of 2010. Do they
also see the food crisis in Africa as a potential to turn a nice profit?
Every corporation has one overriding interest--- self-interest, but
surely not charitable foundations?
Food shortages are seldom about a lack of food, there is plenty of food
in the world, the shortages occur because of the inability to get food
where it is needed and the inability of the hungry to afford it. These
two problems are principally caused by, as Francis Moore Lappe' put it, a
lack of justice. There are also ethical considerations, a higher value should be placed on people than on corporate profit, this must be at the forefront, not an afterthought.
In 2008, there were shortages of food, in some places, for some people.
There was never a shortage of food in 2008 on a global basis, nor is
there currently. True, some countries, in Africa for example, do not
have enough food where it is needed, yet people with money have their
fill no matter where they live. Poverty and inequality cause hunger.
The current food riots in Mozambique were a result of increased wheat
prices on the world market. The UN Food and Agriculture organization,
(FAO) estimates the world is on course to the third largest wheat
harvest in history, so increasing wheat prices were not caused by actual
shortages, but rather by speculation on the price of wheat in the international market.
While millions of people go hungry in India, thousands of kilos of grain rot in
storage. Unable to afford the grain, the hungry depend on the
government to distribute food. Apparently that's not going so well.
Not everyone living in a poor country goes hungry, those with money eat.
Not everyone living in rich country is well fed, those without money go
hungry. We in the US are said to have the safest and most abundant food
supply in the world, yet even here, surrounded by an over abundance of
food, there are plenty of hungry people and their numbers are growing. Do we too have a food crisis, concurrent with an obesity crisis?
Why is there widespread hunger? Is food a right? Is profit taking
through speculation that drives food prices out of the reach of the poor
a right? Is pushing high technology agriculture on an entire continent
at that could feed itself a (corporate) right?
In developing countries, those with hunger and poor food distribution,
the small farmers, most of whom are women, have little say in
agricultural policy. The framework of international trade and the rules
imposed by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank on developing countries, places emphasis on crops for export, not crops for feeding a hungry population.
Despite what we hope are the best intentions of the Gates Foundation, a
New Green Revolution based on genetically engineered crops, imported
fertilizer and government imposed agricultural policy will not feed the
world. Women, not Monsanto, feed most of the worlds population, and the
greatest portion of the worlds diet still relies on crops and farming
systems developed and cultivated by the indigenous for centuries,
systems that still work, systems that offer real promise.
The report of 400 experts from around the world, The International
Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD),
is ignored by the proponents of a New Green Revolution, precisely
because it shows that the best hope for ending hunger lies with local,
traditional, farmer controlled agricultural production, not high tech
industrial agriculture.
To feed the world, fair methods of land distribution must be considered.
A fair and just food system depends on small holder farmers having
access to land. The function of a just farming system is to insure that
everyone gets to eat, industrial agriculture functions to insure those
corporations controlling the system make a profit.
The ultimate cause of hunger is not a lack of Western agricultural
technology, rather hunger results when people are not allowed to
participate in a food system of their choosing. Civil wars, structural
adjustment policies, inadequate distribution systems, international
commodity speculation and corporate control of food from seed to
table--- these are the causes of hunger, the stimulus for food crises.
If the Gates Foundation is serious about ending hunger in Africa, they
need to read the IAASTD report, not Monsanto's quarterly profit report.
Then they can decide how their money might best be spent.
- 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...


55 Comments so far
Show AllGet a life. There are too many humans and in the west they eat (and waste) too much food. That is the crisis.
Usa jobs program, taken from todays news---
US pushes $60bn Saudi arms deal
The largest ever US deal to sell advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia is expected to support at least 75,000 US jobs.
That is the obombers answer to the worlds hunger.. provide means to kill off excess population.
the sickest irony being that back in the 60'sd (or was it the 50's?) Buckminster Fuller showed that as populations get universal access to electricity, the population growth rates drop to approximately zero. The connection? people have something else to entertain themselves with that does not end up causing children to be conceived. for that matter, he showed that the entire earth's population could be housed in a land mass the size of Texas, giving everyone more room per person than they have now, and that the food needed to feed them with could be grown in a land mass smaller than the United States. And doing all this without having to do any mining or resourse extraction, simply by redirecting what we use for "killingry" into "livingry", and by using better design.
"Overpopulation" is a myth. Resource distribution is part of the problem. The other part is that we spend more of our time trying to figure out how to kill each other than we do trying to learn to live together.
Thomas Malthus has been proven wrong.
shill alert. do not feed it.
Shill? Do you even know what that word means? Keep reproducing, breeder. I suppose that just like the deficit, the weight of the average American, and the high school dropout rate, the population can just increase forever and everything will be just fine?
No discussion of resource peaks, food maldistribution or even democratization is an honest one unless and until the role of overpopulation is discussed. If our species is to survive with any decent quality of life for the majority of us then someday every nation in the world will have to institute population growth control through legislation. To pretend otherwise is either blindness or stupidity.
edit: And no. I don't think that this is an appropriate time to address the deficit. Massive infrastructure renewal/replanning and green industry development initiatives (govt owned and controlled) should be the order of the day. Wouldn't want to get called a teabagger next...
Overpopulation is self-correcting, obviously, so it is absurd to advocate for it. "Institute population growth control" you say, suggesting some authoritarian thinking on this subject. War, mass murder and genocide, famine, or disease will control the population. Or...improving the living conditions of the working class will. Let's advocate for improving the living conditions of the working class people rather than advocating reducing the population of other countries so that "we" can then enjoy a "decent quality of life."
Waiting for war, genocide, famine etc to correct overpop sounds barbaric to me. I do agree that improved living conditions help somewhat, but not enough. Otoh, I NEVER advocated reducing the pop in "other" countries. I would advocate gradually lowering population in ALL countries. Lastly, it may be authoritarian to envision legislated pop control, but then all regulation of human activity is in some measure reliant on an expanding definition of government authority and theres nothing inherently wrong with that imo as long as constitutionality is maintained.
PS - I'd shoot for a target population of 2 billion worldwide. Just think of the drastic improvements in sustainability and quality of life that would be possible...
I didn't suggest that we wait for war, genocide, famine etc to correct overpopulation.
Can you not hear yourself? You would shoot for... Can you see what is wrong with that? Imposing population control is inconsistent with civil liberties and human dignity. Human beings are not cattle or lab animals, and just who is it that would be doing this "targeting" and "shooting for" and who would be targeted for being reduced?
There is no evidence whatsoever that merely reducing the population would improve sustainability and quality of life. However, there is abundant evidence that improving the living conditions for th working class does lead to population stabilization.
Sadly, I think that much of the agitation for reducing the population, coming from people of relative privilege in the US and western Europe, is for the purpose of getting rid of a bunch of excess "them," people in impoverished countries so that "we" - upscale westerners - can have a better quality of life. I appreciate the fact that it is an attractive, if simple-minded illusion - if we just had fewer people there would be more to go around, however the shortages and deprivation are the result of predatory neo-colonial economic practices by the western countries, and the coincident destruction of the culture and communities around the world that once sustained people.
Hungry means sick.
Sick means less likely to stand up for your rights, less likely to resist hostilities. Especially if hunger is universal and not just a blip out of the ordinary state of being fed.
Are you sick? Try our new drug. It can make you better...
A sick society is disabled, and how easy is it to take advantage of the disabled.
Hey look.. oil, can you drill it yourselves? Aww.. need help?
Sick is contemporary corporate imperialism.
Hunger is one of the ways it is achieved.
Maybe even the speculators of food, or some of the charities, do not realize this, but I am sure those at the top, those who manipulate laws and those who make speculation possible know where the bunny will go if you leave out a carrot.
Or what will happen if you keep the carrot to yourself...
Hungry also means willing to work for low wages.
In addition to profits gleaned from speculation, corporate speculators also get global downward pressure on wages.
The first green "revolution" made things worse. The new one will devastate agriculture with its genetically modified seed which kills diversity at a time when we desperately need more of it.
Monsanto, WR Grace, Cargill and the like are destroying soil and attempting to patent life for profit.
To really understand these issues read Vanda Shiva's "Soil Not Oil". And know that now food is another weapon of war for the rich countries, Also all these wonder pesticides and fertilizers pushed by the agri-chemical dealers were byproducts of WW11 weapons technology. You can't cheat nature with chemicals that deplete the soil or genetic modifications that increase mono cropping and worse.
This article is spot on in pointing out the inherent inhumanity of a capitalist system. Profit does not equal social good...often the reverse is true.
Overpopulation is another issue...valid but under our system the greedy would always try to dominate resources no matter how few people there were.
It's not widely publicized in the Anglo-American press but during the catastrophic famine in Ireland in the 1840-1850 period that land was producing bumper crops for the wealthy absentee landlords in England. Starving people were forced at gunpoint to watch as the agricultural bounty of their fertile land was shipped to overseas markets. That is the reality of a propertarian system...where wealth accumulation outweighs human need.
Someone here recently posted a link to this YouTube music video by Sinead O'Conner about the Irish famine ("there really was no famine"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVf2NCGkgTU
If you think it is bad now. The global weather change will reduce farm land, soon. At some point, starvation will increase suddenly, killing billions.
Mass migration is just beginning. Moving populations will cause wars, more disruptions in the food distribution and production which will cause more wars and death.
Don't worry, you can elect Obama again or Palin.
If I were at the forefront of the Eugenics Movement, indeed adopting it as a core religious value, I would certainly send huge infusions of cash to Monsanto as a "charitable" contribution (albeit w/unconditional profits).
After all, we have military/ mercenary forces worldwide who can dig deep pits and shovel them in.
I have been helping feed the hungry for over 30 years and I think this article is very important. Monsanto's control of our food is a direct threat to our future.
I urge everyone to organize against Monsanto and start their own seed banks
Consider volunteering with Food Not Bombs.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/154818/food-not-bombs
Its very good you have been helping feed the hungry. What I question is the name you choose for your comments. Tofu which is made from soy beans. Do you have any idea what Monsanto has done to soy beans. I wouldn't eat anything that has soy in it. It is so full of pesticides it will catch up with you. The soy farmers love it because it kills and insects that comes near it. Imagine what it does to you.
Maybe tofu's tofu is made from organic soybeans.
No the statement is correct. All tofu is made of GMO soy. There is no organic non-GMO soy in the United States due to Monsanto. Police are raiding coops, and we are facing arrest because Monsanto is seeking total control of our food. The food safety law before the Senate may mean that we will have to break the law to grow organic gardens. We should wake up. I did two years in jail for feeding the hungry.
Food Not Bombs
http://www.foodnotbombs.net/
Raw organic food coop raided for selling raw organic food.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwjHxJxJbwU
PS Just used the name because I couldn't log on with the name I was using and was sick of signing up over and over again.
"We should wake up. I did two years in jail for feeding the hungry."
That sounds like a story worth telling.
My guess is that this "teaser" sentence is bs. This poster also mentions the idiotic possibility of illegal organic farming. I think it's time to stand up for sanity. Our world seems to have less of it everyday. What happens when sanity withers on the vine and dies? Do we have to pay Monsanto for sanity seeds? (see what I mean?)
This world is an insane asylum. There are two kinds of crazies on it. The just plain insane and the criminally insane. Unfortunately the criminally insane are in leadership roles.
We have a package of tofu in our refrigerator that says it's organic and made from soybeans that were not genetically engineered. It's made by House Foods American Corporation (www.house-foods.com). The FAQ list on their website (http://www.house-foods.com/Tofu/faq.aspx#04_01) includes this question and answer:
Q. "Are you using genetically engineered soybeans?"
A. "No. All of the soybeans used at our company have been cultivated through traditional breeding methods and have not been genetically engineered using recombinant DNA technology."
I've read that that vast majority of soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered and I'm familiar with, and opposed to, Monsanto's nefarious practices. But your claim that "All tofu is made of GMO soy" needs substantiation.
go to Democracy Now for an interview with a canadian farmer who has fought monsanto, won the battle, and has been traveling around the globe spreading his "seeds" around for justice for all and independence from corporate fascists.
in a related note, recently in the state of georgia, a guy was sentenced for $5,000.00 fine for growing "too much food" in his own backyard.
more people getting off the "corporate grid" is the biggest threat to the global corporate-fascist network.
keep up the good work, folks!
Corporations, rich with the approval of corrupt governments take land from farmers and buy up and privitize water; import food stuffs subject to market prices and the world gets a migration of people to any place that they can feed themselves and their families. just here; all we complain about is the illeagal aliens and never wonder why they came to begin with. We propped up governments which screwed their people and still do!!! the surprise is that there are not more. now extend this to the whole world where the rich and powerful are and one can see that "foundations" like Gates are full of shit because they know what is going on. GREED, how can one hate even the word? Karma: the leveling must come. Tony
We need to stop making people around the global dependent on the same failing industrial food system that us westerners are dependent on. We need to help by teaching poor people how to recover the health of their soils and be self sufficient.
This sentence in the first paragraph says it all: "To the poor in the developing world, whose ability to afford food is no better now than in 2008, the hunger continues."
Why "afford" food? Why not GROW food? Why "earn" a living when you can MAKE a living?
------------------------------------------------------
"Our model citizen is a sophisticate who, before puberty, understands how to produce a baby, but who at the age of thirty will not know how to produce a potato" (Wendell Berry)
Don't confuse "green" with green. Monsanto et al. = bad news for world food production. These global initiatives are top down and corporate driven. Stop the corporate land grabs...keep land access open to local farmers. Support sustainable practices, not the spread of corporate farming and use of GMOs.
Most people in this country are somehow immune to the fact that Monsanto's genetic engineering is ruinous to their health. Artificial food colorings, genetic engineering, and pesticides produced by Monsanto are toxic but profitable, just like capitalism!
Expecting the profit at all costs corporate agribusiness model to feed the hungry is the same as believing the profit at all costs corporate health care system will provide good health care. Not gonna happen.
"Monsanto giving free seed to poor small holder farmers sounds great, or are they just setting the hook?"
Of course the monster is just setting the hook. So it doesn't sound great. So why did the author say it sounds great, and then ask if it's not?
Monsanto gives me the choice to buy their seeds or not. I buy. Giving poor small farmers that choice is fine with me. They are free to take, buy, or reject.
Hi GregR. I see you are still going strong on these comment sections.
I don't comment much anymore. I frankly can't stand the ignorance of both the left and right. Jon Stewart has it right with his "Million Moderate March" on 10/30.
I love the look on lefties faces when I explain to them corn grown from hybrid corn plants can't be kept for seeds (unless you want a small fraction of the yield). They scream the usual Monsanto conspiracy crap.
Then I explain it's the genetics of hybrids and Seed corn has been that way since the 1920's. I explain that any 10 year old farm kid knows this. The lefties then get the most confused look...it's priceless. The problem is we have very few 10 year old farm kids anymore who learn these things.
keep up the good comments. CD needs at least a few farmers living in the real world.
much thanks
There have been many stories describing how Monsanto uses lawsuits and binding contracts to control the choices farmers can make, such as this one on sourcewatch.org:
http://tinyurl.com/GoliathAndDavid
And your direct experience in deciding Monsanto or not Monsanto is what? GregR and I both have farms in case you didn't notice. We're well versed in actually buying stuff as opposed to just reading websites.
I have no idea whether or not you have a farm, but even if you do, why would anyone conclude that that somehow shows the many stories that have exposed Monsanto's nefarious tactics to be untrue? If you want to argue that the stories are unfounded, you'll need to address the specific evidence, which is widespread and readily available.
Besides, the entire basis of your rebuttal is illogical. Your logic implies that U.S. citizens who haven't had direct business dealings with B.P., for example, are unqualified to form opinions on that company's motivations and tactics. You'll have a hard time convincing any thoughtful person of the truth of such a claim.
The point is that the liberal activism on farm and food issues, besides being extremely gentrified, based on upscale gourmet personal choice models and libertarian free market ideas, both of which mitigate against support for strong public agriculture programs and infrastructure, also betray an abysmal ignorance about the rudiments of farming and food production. This is so much the case that it is extremely difficult to have any intelligent discussions about agricultural issues.
Monsanto's nefarious tactics are no different than the tactics of any other corporation. It is a systemic problem. Libertarian and right wing think tanks know that of they sprinkle the word "Monsanto," and other buzz words, in their "gubmint bad" and "free choice" screeds, that liberals will jump on them and help distribute them. They are playing on the emotions of gullible and ignorant people.
I would be more than happy to address any specific evidence.
The other poster is not saying that unless you have direct business dealings with Monsanto you therefore are unqualified to form opinions.
Two Americas: You wrote "The other poster is not saying that unless you have direct business dealings with Monsanto you therefore are unqualified to form opinions.", but that seems to be the most direct interpretation of cman2's comment of September 18th, 2010 3:01 pm. How do you interpret his comment?
I don't agree with your opinion that Monsanto's nefarious tactics are no different than the tactics of any other corporation, although I would agree without hesitation that Monsanto is far from alone in this respect. But that doesn't excuse their practices, nor would it even if every U.S. corporation behaved in the same way.
Your classification of criticism of Monsanto as "liberal activism" is probably more or less accurate in the U.S., but opposition to GMO foods has been widespread in Europe for some time, so I don't see the issue as intrinsically liberal-versus-conservative (of course, if you happen to believe that Europe is basically liberal, that observation won't carry any weight with you). In any case, the relevant question is whether the criticisms are well-founded, not whether they come from liberals, conservatives, or any other particular group.
You offered to address specific evidence. There are many articles available on the web, but let's start with this one:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India
I oppose GMO.
I am in the field. I think I have read every article written on the topic. I wondered if there was anything specific you wanted me to respond to.
Farmers hate Monsanto, by the way. Those of us in farming are not "on their side," we just know what we are talking about and almost all of the activists do not.
Just what is it that Monsanto is doing that is so unusual or exceptional?
Splicing genes? Lots of rims doing that.
Bribing politicians and corrupting government agencies? Corporations are doing that every day.
Influencing and corrupting research? That has become an epidemic.
Monopolizing markets? That is the goal of Capitalism.
Controlling supplies and jacking up prices? That's Capitalism.
No matter what evil things you assign to Monsanto, there are hundreds of other corporations just as guilty of the same things.
Why would you imagine that by saying that I am trying to excuse Monsanto? I am merely questioning the obsession with this particular corporate brand name. That is all it is. Succeed in bringing down that brand name and the players and the capital will organize under a new brand name. The word "Monsanto" is useful for fund-raising, and it is useful for getting liberals (American style) to suspend critical judgment and spread right wing talking points.
First you wrote "I would be more than happy to address any specific evidence. ", so I chose one of many possible articles discussing what I consider to be nefarious tactics used by Monsanto and other companies, asking you to respond to the allegations in the article. Then, instead of doing so, you wrote "I wondered if there was anything specific you wanted me to respond to."
I also asked how you interpreted cman2's comment "And your direct experience in deciding Monsanto or not Monsanto is what? ...", given that your interpretation seemed to differ from mine, but you didn't respond to that question either. Perhaps you thought it was a rhetorical question.
Your comments focus on a perceived obsession with Monsanto, but those who oppose certain aspects of agribusiness do not focus exclusively on Monsanto. Moreover, you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I'm focusing exclusively on Monsanto. This thread turned to Monsanto not because of me, but because cman2 in his comment of September 18th, 2010 1:58 pm specifically mentioned that company: "They scream the usual Monsanto conspiracy crap." My response to cman2 was simply a response to that comment, pointing out that criticisms of Monsanto are not "conspiracy crap."
Your litany of unethical practices common to many corporations provides more than enough reason why we should oppose monopolized control of the food supply by corporations, a point you seem to agree with. So if we essentially agree, this thread can die the usual quick death of internet discussions.
If you find no value in my point of view on this subject, that is fine.
As I said, I am extremely familiar with all of the articles written on this topic. The suggestion was that I and others were somehow avoiding responding to specific evidence. "Specific." You throw an article at me and tell me to "start here." That does not answer the question - what specific evidence would you like a response to?
I don't understand the question "and your direct experience in deciding Monsanto or not Monsanto is what? ..." so I didn't answer it. It is a nonsensical question. What does "Monsanto or not Monsanto" mean? Nothing, that I can see. Reminds me of evangelical religion- "choose! God or the devil! Heaven or Hell!"
I do find value in your point of view, but this thread doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, so I don't see much point in continuing.
The article I mentioned discusses specific allegations about the business practices of Monsanto and other "agribusinesses". But having read everything you've written in this thread, I gather that you wouldn't dispute those allegations.
For the record, I asked about your interpretation of cman2's "and your direct experience ..." remark because you wrote "The other poster is not saying that unless you have direct business dealings with Monsanto you therefore are unqualified to form opinions." in response to my post, in which I refuted cman2's argument. It seems clear to me that cman2 meant to imply that those with no direct business dealings with Monsanto are unqualified to form opinions on the topic, and your comment in reply to mine disputes that, so I asked you for a clarification. But this is minor point.
Here are the points that are most effective for attacking GMO, and that won't get you dismissed as ignorant by any and all people knowledgeable about agriculture:
1. Biotech companies are gene-splicing solely for the propose of putting genetic "markers" on the DNA so they can patent and control crop varieties. Improvements in crop qualities are coming from conventional breeding, and then companies are claiming ownership of those new varieties and claiming that the improved qualities came from genetic engineering when they did not.
2. Apparently genetic material is far more migratory than the biotech companies are claiming. "Life will find a way."
3. Apparently it is more unpredictable than has been claimed where the introduced genetic material will appear on the DNA and how it will be expressed. This can lead to many unknown and unintended consequences.
So, we do not know what the long range consequences are. We do not know. That is sufficient reason to call for much stricter public oversight.
We do know that the companies are using biotech to create monopoly control over food. That is sufficient reason to call for a moratorium and can lead to a clear political analysis and effective political action.
They hyperbolic fear mongering and scare campaigns, while they are extremely effective for organizations to use for fund raising, are useless and counter-productive. They are easily debunked and refuted by advocates for the bio-tech industry and dismissed by almost everyone in the greater agricultural community. The research that has been done about human health risks is thin, preliminary and inconclusive.
Two Americas: In your post of September 21st, 2010 1:46 am, you provided a long list of practices typical to many large corporations, including Monsanto, including bribing politicians and corrupting government agencies, influencing and corrupting research, monopolizing markets, and controlling supplies and jacking up prices. Furthermore, in this post, you say that "biotech companies are gene-splicing solely for the propose of putting genetic 'markers' on the DNA so they can patent and control crop varieties."
Then, despite the obvious dangers such corporate behavior poses in the context of the nation's (and the world's) food supply, you refer to "the hyperbolic fear mongering and scare campaigns." What's hyperbolic about being afraid of companies that behave in the way you described gaining control of our food supply?
Not following you. Both could be, and I think are, true. They don't contradict one another. There is a threat, and the activists are of-base and are running destructive and illogical and false fear campaigns.
Example - the FDA responded to a recent food borne pathogen outbreak by starting a scare campaign about tomatoes. Millions of tons of food was thrown out, and growers were seriously hurt. It turns out the contamination was from peppers, and they were imported. Does that mean that food borne pathogens cannot be dangerous? No, of course not. So you can have a real danger, and at the same time have a misleading and destructive fear campaign.
Clearly, I am writing about correctly identifying the danger and responding to it effectively. I am not on either of the two imaginary "sides" of the issue. They are both nonsense.
Two Americas: You wrote: "Clearly, I am writing about correctly identifying the danger and responding to it effectively." The point you were making was not at all clear to me from your earlier posts. Whether that was due to lack of clarity on your part or a misinterpretation of your meaning on my part, I cannot say, but the confusion seems to have been dispelled. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I outlined an alternative approach to fighting GMOs, more effectively than the approach now being used. Why are you ignoring that, and instead trying to portray me as the enemy, as a non-believer in the righteous cause? Are we serious about stopping GMOs, or do we merely want to be "against" it and portray ourselves as the good guys and others as the bad guys and feel good about ourselves?
I did not ignore what you wrote - I read every word of it and I responded to most of it. As I mentioned in a reply to another of your posts, your meaning was not at all clear to me from your earlier posts. If you see me as a proponent of a righteous cause who sees you, in turn, as a non-believer, you are mistaken, and I don't believe anything I wrote justifies such a stereotyped viewpoint.
In your latest posts you are specific in describing the kinds of things you consider to be "hyperbolic fear mongering" (e.g., the FDA's response to food-borne illness), but in your earlier posts you used such phrases in the context of a discussion about criticism of Monsanto and other large agribusinesses. I think that my interpretation that you were associating criticism of Monsanto with hyperbolic fear mongering is perfectly fair, given what you had written up to that point, which included no mention of the FDA's overblown response to the tomato scare or other such particulars.
As to the approach you suggested in your post of September 21st, 2010 1:03 pm (assuming that's what you're referring to), items 2 and 3 are common complaints of the critics of GMO foods, although it's useful to have them enunciated here. I don't recall seeing your first claim before. If it's true, it's a further indictment of the GMO food industry.
Why should I listen to you. Yoj might buy it, plant it, grow it, harvest it, and sell it, but it doesn't seem like you know or care about what you produce enough to think about your fellow farmers when they might want to farm in an organic or even conventional way, or the health of the people who buy unknowingly buy your product, or the destruction of genetic diversity of crops, or being able to keep your own seeds to plant in following years, etc. For all I know Monsanto or some other agrigiant pays you a tidy some to say nice things about them.
No doubt your going to continue to produce what you do, but I want to know what your producing and have the option not to buy products made from it.
Apparently, not all farmers agree with you. You might check out "David vs. Monsanto" for another viewpoint. These are farmers talking, not me.
I did not grow up on a farm, but I had friends who did and spent time working with them when I stayed with them. You are right about there being fewer 10 year-old farm kids nowadays. Why do you think that is?
Good post. Thanks. Frustrating, isn't it?