The problem we’re facing, however, is not about lack of sustainable solutions. The problem is that Big 6 pesticide companies like Monsanto — supported by USDA and backed by the U.S. government's export-driven trade agenda — have built up an agricultural economic system that puts multinational corporations' profits above people's well-being, and locks farmers into these unsustainable practices. – Marcia Ishii-Eiteman Apr 16, 2015 in GroundTruth (www.panna.org)
It's
tough these days to be against genetic engineering of our food.
Articles in Slate and The New Yorker make us look like looney fringe
nut cases and the House of Representatives voted by a large margin to
ban labeling of food that have genetically altered ingredients in
them. It's bleak. Science, they tell us, is against us and we are
just paranoids.
However,
I don't know if you've noticed, but a lot of this bad press seems to
have rolled off the same printer – there is a remarkable
consistency through all of this that seems to look like one source
fed these writers – that their research was something akin to
calling up Monsanto and saying, “Do your GMO crops produce more?”
And publishing Monsanto's answer with Monsanto's test results and
calling that science.
Just
like calling up the tobacco companies and asking if their products
caused cancer and getting their 'no' answer and quoting their studies
that prove that their cigarettes did indeed not cause cancer. In
other words, a lot of what we are reading about the success of GMO
crops is paid for by the biotechies pushing the stuff. And when you
get a study that proves them wrong, they go after that researcher,
not by refuting the research, but by slandering the researcher and
attempting to ruin his or her career. It takes more guts than most
people have to see their careers ruined and their name dragged
through the mud, ergo, not much research disparaging genetic
alteration gets very far along.
Thank
God, in recent months, glyphosate has come under scrutiny. That is a
shining chance to thwart at least that segment of genetic
engineering. Not only is it a carcinogen, as declared by the World
Health Organization, but touted as appearing in such benign places as
mothers' breast milk as reported by Moms Across America, who noted
that their sample of women were aware of GMOs and had worked for some
time to avoid GmOs. Of course, the herbicide has been used to dry
out grains like wheat (which s not commercially genetically altered)
after harvesting, so simply avoiding GMOs will not stop glyphosate in
your diet. In addition, testing showed considerably more glyphosate
in the mothers' urine samples – way over what was found in the
urine of European mothers in a study conducted in 2013. Now several
counter studies to the breast milk study have responded indicating
that the MAA study was wrong, but of course, Monsanto can buy (and
has bought) favorable test results in the past, so who to believe?
When there is any question about research, I like to trust those who
aren't benefiting financially from the results, but who is that?
Please note the MAA study is only preliminary but the World Health
Organization's findings have got to be accorded some significant
weight.
Those
of us familiar with the lying nature of Monsanto are not surprised
that the biotech giant has lied (and continues to lie) about
glyphosate, the main ingredient in their popular Round Up weed
killer. Remember they told us it was not only benign once in the
soil, but also that it did not persist in nature; both claims are
obviously incorrect. Did they somehow just overlook these facts or
did they consciously lie about them? Take your pick, with Monsanto's
track record on DDT, PCBs and their lies about those and other
products, I'll believe the latter. If corporations are people,
Monsanto should be placed on a lie detector.
But
honestly, we do not need to argue these facts with all the biotech
apologists and paid off cronies. We have a bigger truth that they
cannot assail.
GMOs
will lead to inevitable starvation in those countries that use them as the primary source of their food..
That is the simple honest truth.
It
is provable that we have far fewer varieties of plants on our store
shelves today thanks to the GMO boom and it will only get worse. It
is this loss of genetic diversity that will be the death of us.
Instead of having a robust variety of different kinds of the same
produce, there are only a few genetically altered varieties to work
with. Our acres and acres of corn are all planted with very similar
genetic varieties. This means a pathogen that can attack one field,
can attack many fields and suddenly you have a destroyed corn (or soy
or whatever) crop. Prices go up – poorer folks suffer
disproportionately, hunger in America.
To
the labs creating these 'new' varieties in their labs, this is seen
as a boon. After all, they can find the flaw in the pathogen and GMO
a new variety that resists it and have more products to sell. But in
truth, that becomes a new marketing gimmick – a new variety every
year making investors and the company richer.
Conventional
breeding would breed a different way. First off, we'd have many
varieties in the field and some would be resistant and would find
more people planting it next year. Conventional breeders would
attack the problem in a different way. Genetic alterations of a crop
operate in a specific way called “vertical” breeding – one
trait is changed for the crop to survive. The one gene variation is
easy for a given pathogen to circumvent. Conventional breeding
happens “horizontally” and is much harder to thwart by a given
pathogen. These are generalizations and there are exceptions, but
generalizations tend to become generalizations because they are more
often than not (and by a margin) true.
This
was the genesis of the Irish Potato Famine. The blight attacked the
two kinds, genetically similar, of potatoes grown in Ireland and
these potatoes were the only food that most of the Irish peasants
depended upon. (Before some one calls to me task for oversimplifying
it, I know the “God sent the blight but English brought the famine”
but this is an article on crop diversity, so please forgive me, we
can deal with the famine another time). The same thing could happen
here in a heartbeat. We are one of the most food insecure societies
on earth because of our current dependence on genetic engineering. This will only get worse if Congress continues to take
the biotech money and biotech lies and allow our health, our environment's health and our food diversity to continue to deteriorate at the alarming rate it is currently.
Mind you, this is only one of many reasons we need to move away from the genetic engineering option to the traditional way of breeding new plants and also move away from the massive amounts of pesticides we use to grow our food.
It has felt lonely these last few days, fighting the genetic alterations of our food. But the end game of this is too big to loose! If we do not save our varieties of seeds and continue the tradition of saving our seeds from the big bullies, we will find our food supply locked up by the corporations and then what do we have? We all wish to eat.
Let it be healthy food, not patented and laced with poison or contaminated with genetic engineering.
david