GM-No
An article I wrote about some of the many dangers of the genetic-engineering of agriculture.
Overall, sales of corn seed and traits rose 46 percent, while sales of cotton seeds and traits jumped 73 percent” (7)
GM-No
By Joseph Albrecht
I remember visiting my
grandparents’ house as a kid. I was
immediately drawn to their large garden.
My grandfather grew tomatoes, string beans, cucumbers, strawberries,
basil, oregano, lettuce, beets, mint, rhubarb, garlic, gooseberries and red
currents. He’s also experimented with
many other crops and today he continues saving the seed to replant next
season. Everything had a feeling of
wholesome and natural about it.
Unfortunately
this way of growing food, while satisfying to family gardeners, is despised by
today’s agricultural giants. Instead,
large swaths of land grow a single type of crop for the maximum amount of
profit. A popular farming method used by
food conglomerates across the spectrum is referred to as genetic engineering,
producing genetically-modified organisms or (GMOs). This involves taking the DNA of one plant and
splicing it into that of another and has grown to be implemented in many
nations of the world. The five GM-giants
in the United States are: Monsanto, Dupont, Bayer, Syngenta and the Dow
Chemical Company. Yet these five have
bought out more than 200 other agricultural companies, amassing unfathomable
control over our food supply (1). On
Monsanto’s website, they list 71 global locations (2). Why would these corporations want to use
biotechnology? Popular reasons include:
1. Biotechnology is needed to feed a growing global population. 2. Genetic
engineering can help reduce the amount of pesticides. 3. GMO crops provide
greater food security because they are more productive than their organic
counterparts.
Let’s
take a look at each of these reasons.
First, since GMO crops have not been studied as to what their long term
effects are, there is no sound scientific proof that they will effectively feed
the world’s growing population. Farmers
have traditionally saved their seed year after year, saving money and producing
reliable crops. However, Monsanto has
invented a dreaded practice known as “Terminator Technology”. “With Monsanto's terminator technology, they
will sell seeds to farmers to plant crops. But these seeds have been
genetically-engineered so that when the crops are harvested, all new seeds from
these crops are sterile (e.g., dead, unusable). This forces farmers to pay
Monsanto every year for new seeds if they want to grow their crops” (3). Second, again; with lack of long term
testing, there is no way to be sure that GMO crops require less pesticides than
non-GMO crops. Also, there is
controversy over the potential health effects of GMOs. Here’s just one example
from Natural News:
“Corn plants genetically modified (GM) to produce pesticides
in their tissues are contaminating water supplies across the US Midwest,
according to a study conducted by researchers from the Cary Institute of
Ecosystem Studies and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science.” (4).
Moreover, there is growing evidence
linking GMOs to infertility:
“When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed
color—from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered young
sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their
DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which
were also smaller than normal.
Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.
In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating” (5).
Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.
In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating” (5).
Finally, from the few studies done on
the subject, GMO crops don’t provide significantly more food than organic and
non-GMO crops. In fact, the opposite
appears to be true “An example of the innovation of producers and researchers
can be found at the Long Term Agroecological Research (LTAR) site in
Greenfield, Iowa where organic yields are improving and sometimes exceeding
conventional yields” (6).
With
GMOs, unfortunately money prevails over sound science and since GM companies
have significantly more money, they can and do influence legislation through
lobbying efforts to “engineer” the laws in their favor. To prove this point, here is a view to just
how much Monsanto’s profits are soaring:
“Sales in
Monsanto's seeds and genomics segment increased 32 percent to $1.5 billion,
reflecting the strength in Latin America and some timing benefits from its
Australian cotton business.Overall, sales of corn seed and traits rose 46 percent, while sales of cotton seeds and traits jumped 73 percent” (7)
Activism
has been taken to try and loosen the stranglehold that these biotech companies,
specifically Monsanto, have acquired.
Unfortunately, as is too often the case, Monsanto’s lobbyists were able
to prevail over scores of farmer’s peace of mind and agricultural common sense:
“A
New York federal court today dismissed a lawsuit against agribusiness giant
Monsanto brought by thousands of certified organic farmers. The farmers hoped
the suit would protect them against infringing on the company's crop patents in
the future.
The
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and several other growers and
organizations do not use Monsanto seeds. But they were betting that the judge
would agree that Monsanto should not be allowed to sue them if pollen from the
company's patented crops happened to drift into their fields.
Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs'
allegations were
"unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have
been so threatened." The ruling also found that the plaintiffs had
"overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto's] patent enforcement."
Monsanto brings an average of 13 patent-enforcement lawsuits per year, which,
the judge said, "is hardly significant when compared to the number of
farms in the United States, approximately two million" (8).
On Monsanto’s website, there is a
question and answer section regarding key questions about safety, patent
rights, etc. Here is, I believe an
important issue to consider when placed in the proper context:
|
Can a farmer be sued when a small
amount of GM crop pollen blows into a neighbor's fields? Do you sue this
farmer? Does he or she have to prove he or she is innocent?
|
|
|
It has never been, nor will it be,
Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our
patented traits are present in farmers’ fields as a result of inadvertent
means. We have no motivation to conduct business in this manner, nor have we
ever attempted to conduct business in this manner -- and we surely would not
prevail in the courts if we did.
|
|
|
|
Notice their use of the word trace amounts. In 2000, Canadian canola farmer, Percy
Schmeiser, was sued by Monsanto for allegedly planting their patented GMO
canola seed. Schmeiser claimed to
never have planted the seeds and fortunately was able to win this case:
“The Canadian federal court hearing lasted three weeks before a judge in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. At trial, Monsanto presented evidence from two dozen witnesses and samplers that Schmeiser's eight fields all were more than 90% Roundup Ready, indicating it was a commercial-grade crop. Monsanto performed no independent tests as their tests were all performed in house or by experts hired by the company.
In his defense, Schmeiser showed
his own farm-based evidence that the fields ranged from nearly zero to 68%
Roundup Ready. These tests were confirmed by independent tests performed by
research scientists at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, MB.
Schmeiser's defense also contained evidence that he didn't knowingly acquire
Monsanto's product, segregate the contaminated seeds for future use or spray
his canola with Roundup.
Monsanto
did not directly try to explain how the Roundup Ready seed got there.
"Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at
all," said Roger Hughes, a Monsanto attorney quoted by The Western
Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine. A canola scientist, in an
affidavit for Monsanto in the trial, said Schmeiser's theories of
cross-pollination by wind and bees did not make sense to him, given the
purity of plants grown based on Monsanto's tests. "It was a very
frightening thing, because they said it does not matter how it gets into a
farmer's field; it's their property," Schmeiser said, in an interview
with Agweek. "If it gets in by wind or cross-pollination,
that doesn't matter."” (9)
Farmers who, like Schmeiser,
choose to plant non-GMO and organic seeds are at risk from drift winds that
have been proven to carry GMO seed for miles.
This can contaminate farmers’ fields without them even knowing and is
yet another testament to the rampant uncertainty about the use of genetic
engineering technology.
|
|
|
|
With money
and power on their side, the outlook for improving this situation can appear to
be quite grim. The GMO giants have
acquired enough control to virtually change existing laws to further benefit
their lust for ever-more domination over the world’s food supply. This is sadly
true even when these very same laws contribute to the economic ruin of farmers
and the environmental ruin of the planet.
Nonetheless, we still can fight back by growing our own food and voting
with our dollar. There is a Non-GMO
shopping guide available at www.nongmoshoppingguide.com (10). I choose to grow a
garden and buy non-GMO to at least
ensure that my family and I “terminate” GMOs from our lifestyle. It is my sincere hope that consumer, farmer
freedoms and basic human rights are protected from this power-hungry corporate
onslaught.
Sources
Comments
Post a Comment