the real genetically modified food scandal

[alocispepraluger102]

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/printarticle.php?id=9876

[Guy Berger]

I haven't read the whole article, but I agree with the gist of it -- it would be extremely unfortunate if European squeamishness about "genetically modified" food resulted in greater hunger in the poor areas of the world.

Guy

[porcy62]

The issue is not really so plain as expressed in the article.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=127

[ejp626]

Personally, I think the spread of GM food will have mostly negative long-term impacts, including loss of genetic diversity and further concentration of economic power in the hands of 3 or 4 companies. Of course, I also think it was a enormously foolish mistake to allow the patenting of genes, as it will have mostly negative unanticipated consequences (a la Robert Merton).

[MoGrubb]

....Only a decade after their commercial introduction, GM crops are now cultivated in 22 countries on over 100m hectares (an area more than four times the size of Britain) by over 10m farmers, of whom 9m are resource-poor farmers in developing countries, mainly India and China. Most of these small-scale farmers grow pest-resistant GM cotton. In India alone, production tripled last year to over 3.6m hectares. This cotton benefits farmers because it reduces the need for insecticides, ...

The article doesn't continue and to state that pest-resistant crops, by eliminating the need of insecticides, upsets the balance of nature by eliminating an important source for birds' food, for starters.

[mikeweil]

I haven't read the whole article, but I agree with the gist of it -- it would be extremely unfortunate if European squeamishness about "genetically modified" food resulted in greater hunger in the poor areas of the world.

Guy

I haven't read the article either, but hunger around the world is more a problem of food distribution and economical power than a matter of having genetically altered food to increase production.

[mikeweil]

... European squeamishness about "genetically modified" food ...

That's a harsh word for criticism of scientists who think they are more clever than the sensitive processes of biological evolution. We really have no definite idea of the effects on our biological environment. And in cases were the modified species are no longer fertile, making agriculture depend on the genetics industry, I see nothing but economical interests behind it all.

[Claude]

Personally, I think the spread of GM food will have mostly negative long-term impacts, including loss of genetic diversity and further concentration of economic power in the hands of 3 or 4 companies. Of course, I also think it was a enormously foolish mistake to allow the patenting of genes, as it will have mostly negative unanticipated consequences (a la Robert Merton).

I agree with these points.

We already have all the technological and economic means to stop hunger in the world, as well as contain AIDS and other epidemics, but the greed of the developped nations (and of many leaders of the developping countries) makes it impossible.

[porcy62]

We already have all the technological and economic means to stop hunger in the world, as well as contain AIDS and other epidemics, but the greed of the developped nations (and of many leaders of the developping countries) makes it impossible.

Indeed. And if yurpeans are to blame is for their economic support of EU agriculturs, rather then GM. And blame that genius of GWB for the support of biofuel that rised up the price of food in the global market. It may affect the price of our pop-corn for few cents, but it has a big impact in poor countries, if you consider that in poor countries people spend more then 70% of their income for food, compared to our 10%.

Edited November 9, 2007 by porcy62

[ejp626]

There's an interesting study funded by the National Science Foundation (not a fringe environmental group) showing certain drawbacks to GMO corn and its byproducts entering water ecosystems: NSF study

The study doesn't necessarily say that these new impacts outweigh the benefits, but I think it does point out how we (US producers) do these things without really thinking through all the consequences. GMO can mean all kinds of things, and if it makes crops more weather resistant that's generally a good thing. When they build toxins into plants to make them pest-resistant (part of the problem here) you really are talking about potentially upsetting a number of ecosystems. Humans have been doing this for a long time (Cronin's Nature's Metropolis is particularly good on how what seems natural about the midwest is almost entirely the product of human intervention) but the scale of the changes we can achieve now and the potential for something getting out of hand are so much higher now. GM-skeptics like myself mostly want to slow down so all the consequences can be examined and informed decisions made. Of course, capitalism or really hyper-capitalism does not afford us this luxury. Interestingly, even the study write-up lends support to the idea that the system is out of hand: "Farmers are, to a large extent, required to use the latest technological advances in order to stay competitive and profitable in the current agro-industrial system."