Objections to GMO definitions and GMO benefits.
Food production is very important because everyone eats. But we are constantly being told by media and politicians that we have a population problem, or that there is a food "crisis", or that there is not enough space on earth for the growing population, or that water is a scarce resource. But the truth is as obvious as it can be to anybody who takes a flight across North America. Vast open spaces of uninhabited land are widely abundant. There is plenty of room for even more people than we have now, and there is plenty of food produced already. And as long as there is rain, we will have all the water we need. The real problem is that most of the food produced spoils, rots, or is damaged in transport or simply never makes it to consumers, as is explained very well in this video "how-much-food-do-we-waste-every-year". The second main problem with food production is the greedy drive for profits. During The Great Depression in the 1930's, grain silos were full of wheat, corn, and other food stores. But consumers had no money to buy this food so it remained underutilized until it simply began to rot. Essentially, there WAS enough food grown to feed the starving, but for a lack of profit, the food was allowed to spoil. It is estimated that between a full third to half of all food commercially grown is never eaten. The real problem then is efficiently producing and distributing the food and the drive for profits. What a pitiful state we live in when food is left to rot while people are left to starve.
Food production is very important because everyone eats. But we are constantly being told by media and politicians that we have a population problem, or that there is a food "crisis", or that there is not enough space on earth for the growing population, or that water is a scarce resource. But the truth is as obvious as it can be to anybody who takes a flight across North America. Vast open spaces of uninhabited land are widely abundant. There is plenty of room for even more people than we have now, and there is plenty of food produced already. And as long as there is rain, we will have all the water we need. The real problem is that most of the food produced spoils, rots, or is damaged in transport or simply never makes it to consumers, as is explained very well in this video "how-much-food-do-we-waste-every-year". The second main problem with food production is the greedy drive for profits. During The Great Depression in the 1930's, grain silos were full of wheat, corn, and other food stores. But consumers had no money to buy this food so it remained underutilized until it simply began to rot. Essentially, there WAS enough food grown to feed the starving, but for a lack of profit, the food was allowed to spoil. It is estimated that between a full third to half of all food commercially grown is never eaten. The real problem then is efficiently producing and distributing the food and the drive for profits. What a pitiful state we live in when food is left to rot while people are left to starve.
I am not opposed to GMO technologies as a whole. For example the development of Golden Rise is a great benefit to humanity. If GMO technologies were used entirely to enhance the nutrition of our foods, I doubt there would be any legitimate objections. In terms of nutrition, GMO crops are potentially the most effective technologies. If for example a variety of apple were developed that could provide all of ones vitamin requirements, it would be received with praise and gratitude. But GMO crops are not generally developed to enhance nutrition. They are developed to mainly extend market viability, and to promote pesticide use.
We are told that most, if not all, crops are GMO crops. We are told that all tomatoes are GMO tomatoes. Proponents like to claim that traditional breeding techniques are somehow equivalent to trans-genetic manipulation. It is perfectly true that "wild" verities of the tomato are not like the domestic versions because of breeding and hybridizing. However, traditionally most strains of crops were selected for reasons other than commercial viability.
We are told that we need technologies like
GMO's and mass chemical production to create fertilizers and pesticides just to
meet the demands of our growing population. These are almost entirely lies. If
the goal of making GMO crops is to increase global food production, why bother
to invent terminator seeds? Why legally persecute those who grow these crops
(intentionally or not)? The real purpose for creating GMO crops is to patent
and gain legal ownership over entire species and to pollute the wild stains
with these genetically modified strains thus expanding ownership of nature. But
why pollute wild strains? The answer it seems is to create a monopoly on
food production. By inventing 'terminator' seeds and allowing these genes
to mix into wild populations, seed producing companies establish a monopoly on
crops. What are terminator seed? Terminator seeds are 'programmed' to
produce crops that do not make fertile seeds, thus forcing growers to purchase
more seeds every season from a single company (Monsanto) instead of using seeds
from the last crop. Also terminator seeds are designed to not germinate unless
they are exposed to certain chemicals like herbicides (namely Round-up).
This effectively sterilizes the earth of any plant life other than
that GMO crop. I am not saying that using genetic technologies for improving
our crops is a bad thing. What I'm saying is that if there is no real 'food
crisis' then any improvements to our crops is pointless. And again IF the goal
of making GMO crops is to increase global food production, why invent
terminator seeds? These are serious questions that every person on earth should
consider. The counter to this is simple; grow your own heirloom strain crops.
Harvest your own seeds and establish your own seed banks. This in fact has been
done and has been going on for decades. The largest and best known seed bank is
in Norway on the island of Spitsbergen. The efforts of seed banks like this are
to ensure the survival of viable strains in case of massive catastrophe. But we
are currently in the midst of a major catastrophe in the form of an
"irreparable assault on the biosphere" in the form of GMOs
polluting wild genomes and corporate ownership of entire species.
Why am I on about crops, GMO's and farming
technologies? It's simple, every mouth needs to eat, and globally food
production has been slowly consolidated into the hands of a few
companies. Buying, supporting or just ignoring these companies is aiding to the
consolidation of their power over all of us. Food supplies have the most direct
influence on a population. Whoever controls the food controls the population.
That's why I'm on about food production!!! I watched an episode of Penn and
Tellers "Bullshit" about GMO foods and they totally ignored this.
While in general I agree with their opinions there are many things they never
mention when supporting or opposing various topics. One thing they were keen to
repeat is that GMO technologies are meant to feed the world and its growing
populations and are good because of this. Firstly I'd argue that a growing
population is not a good thing and should be discouraged, secondly and again,
I'd remind that there is no 'food crisis' as we think or as they mean, the
reality of the 'food crisis' is this; food is grown in abundance where it is
actually grown, it is then shipped to consumers across the globe but much of
that food never makes it to consumers because of spoilage. That's it, that's
really all there is to the 'food crisis'.
Proponents of GMO technologies will claim that these patents are meant to allow a company (or other research group) to regain the expenses of developing the new strain. This is perfectly acceptable in itself. However, as we've seen, these varieties are capable of cross pollinating with wild strains. This is a major problem with patents because the cross pollinated wild strains now have patented genes. Does this mean the patent extends to the newly formed hybrids? This is a very important question. Consider an RR GMO crop like soy, designed to be "Roundup ready" where there is no obvious distinction between the non-GMO variety and the RR stain. How could a farmer growing the non-GMO variety even know if his crop has been cross pollinated? Until he collects the seeds and has them tested for the patented genes, or plants them, or is forced into court by a suing party, he simply cannot know. Perhaps patented GMO varieties should be modified in a way that physically alters the plants (or seeds) themselves in a way that is obvious to the naked eye. This could potentially be done with the insertion of pigment genes. But this is something that any company or university that is invested in developing patented strains should consider.
Proponents of GMO technologies will claim that these patents are meant to allow a company (or other research group) to regain the expenses of developing the new strain. This is perfectly acceptable in itself. However, as we've seen, these varieties are capable of cross pollinating with wild strains. This is a major problem with patents because the cross pollinated wild strains now have patented genes. Does this mean the patent extends to the newly formed hybrids? This is a very important question. Consider an RR GMO crop like soy, designed to be "Roundup ready" where there is no obvious distinction between the non-GMO variety and the RR stain. How could a farmer growing the non-GMO variety even know if his crop has been cross pollinated? Until he collects the seeds and has them tested for the patented genes, or plants them, or is forced into court by a suing party, he simply cannot know. Perhaps patented GMO varieties should be modified in a way that physically alters the plants (or seeds) themselves in a way that is obvious to the naked eye. This could potentially be done with the insertion of pigment genes. But this is something that any company or university that is invested in developing patented strains should consider.
The other reason to be weary of GMO crops is their tendency to promote the use of chemical pesticides. This is in fact probably the second main reason GMO crops have been developed. All the objections to the use of pesticides directly correlate to GMO crops as a whole. Simply put, any GMO crops that are designed to be used with pesticides only promote more use of those pesticides. And again, to who's benefit? The chemical manufacturers themselves benefit at the expense of our environment and biodiversity. Essentially the promotion of pesticides is my largest objection to GMO crops as they seem to go hand in hand.
Some important and influential names to research are Michael Phillips, Michael Pollan, Sepp Holzer, Geoff Lawton, Bill Mollison, Masenobu Fukuooka, Robert Hart, Toby Hemenway, and Eric Toensmeier. Their topics range from edible landscaping to food forests to permaculture to traditional agriculture and GMO research. I highly recommend reading everything related to these topics.
When all your food is purchased with your money your very survival becomes dependent on retaining an income. This is essentially slavery. The more food you can get without spending money, the more free you will be. I do not think of money in terms of dollars and cents but in terms of time from my life. Every minute I spend working for someone else is one minute less of my life that I get to enjoy and own as mine. When all necessities are thoroughly examined food is the most essential. If a person is well nourished they have their health. Health is wealth. Thus food is wealth. Growing your own food is the best way to attain and retain wealth. Simply growing some of your own food will help to free you from the trap of economy and income. It will help you better adjust to the changes of our planet by giving you better peace of mind to know that regardless of how much money you make or how much the price of oil changes or how global trade systems evolve, you will always have enough food.
End of rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment