GM crops promote superweeds, food insecurity and pesticides, say NGOs Report

[kpete]

Source: Guardian UK

GM crops promote superweeds, food insecurity and pesticides, say NGOs
Report finds genetically modified crops fail to increase yields let alone solve hunger, soil erosion and chemical-use issues

Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of "superweeds", according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people.

The so-called miracle crops, which were first sold in the US about 20 years ago and which are now grown in 29 countries on about 1.5bn hectares (3.7bn acres) of land, have been billed as potential solutions to food crises, climate change and soil erosion, but the assessment finds that they have not lived up to their promises.

The report claims that hunger has reached "epic proportions" since the technology was developed. Besides this, only two GM "traits" have been developed on any significant scale, despite investments of tens of billions of dollars, and benefits such as drought resistance and salt tolerance have yet to materialise on any scale.

Most worrisome, say the authors of the Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs, is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals, used to control pests despite biotech companies' justification that GM-engineered crops would reduce insecticide use.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-crops-insecurity-superweeds-pesticides

[SpiralHawk]

1. Big Ag (R) pumping out the mutant crapola

Occupy Mutant Ag

[EFerrari]

16. And the State Department hawking that mutant crapola all over the world.

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Fuck Monsanto. n/t

[valerief]

3. GM crops increase profits for Monsanto. Making rich people rich is the most important thing in the

world, after all.

[russspeakeasy]

6. 45% of the price of seed corn is for royalties that go directly to

the monster company monsanto..I don't know the percentages on other crop
seeds, but I would assume it is close to that number.. No matter the brand name on the seed, the royalties must be paid. This is world wide, so you can imagine the profits on their patents.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Can we stop using GM stuff now?

[lunasun]

5. millions against monsanto

check it out millions against monsanto
http://www.facebook.com/millionsagainst
Gee but Bill Gates told me that Monsanto was going to feed the world....oops forgot to mention feed the world poison!!!

People shook their head when Haiti refused the gift of the GMO seeds after the earthquake

Global Research called Monsanto's initial donation of 475 tons of hybrid seeds and chemicals a "new earthquake" and "deadly gift".


http://www.naturalnews.com/029222_GMOs_Haiti.html

[defendandprotect]

12. Agree -- lack of food hasn't been the problem -- $$ to buy it has been the problem -- !!!

This is like their chemical/hormone to get cows to product even more milk than they're

already over producing -- what is it BGH -- Bovine Growth Hormone --

and that stuff gets in many other products!!

The people we have elected in both parties have abandonded their responsibilities to protect

the public from WEALTH -- the wealth the elites have gained the wealth of corporations.


When we are given no choice by corporations -- whether about our food, or air, or water we

drink -- or health care -- it's because our candidates and elected officials have been busy

selling themselve sto elites/corpoations. And selling our governmen and agencies to them!

[bettyellen]

7. .

[pam4water]

8. I'm glad the Guardian is there to get this info out since the MSM wont do it here. K&R

[boppers]

9. Hilarious..

This is why ideological advocates don't belong in the sciences. Lets just dissect the first paragraph:

"Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop"
...because so many countries have banned GM food crops, farmers are growing fuel and materials crops, reducing overall food crop output.

"but has vastly increased the use of chemicals"
...because less chemicals are used on the crops themselves, there are more insects, and weeds, so people annoyed by insects are weeds using the chemicals that aren't being used anymore....(seriously, that's the argument being made).

"and the growth of "superweeds","
...meaning "a weed resistant to a specific weeding method", which is what happens with all weeding methods.

"according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people."
...according to advocates, not scientists, with an argument ad populum thrown in.

The whole thing is worth a read, if only for the convoluted logic and internal contradictions. For extra amusement, read the article while substituting ethnic minorities for GM crops, a dominant majority for non-GM crops, and you'll see where the line of human thinking behind this comes from. Example:

"Co-existence between GM and conventional crops is not possible because genetic pollution and contamination of conventional crops is impossible to control."
becomes:
"Co-existence between jews and germans is not possible because genetic pollution and contamination of germans is impossible to control."

edit:typo

[defendandprotect]

14. You're comparing "Frankenfoods" to anti-Semitism by Nazi's .... ????

Quite a stretch to alibi for the disgusting Monsanto -- !!!

:nuke:

[PaulaFarrell]

15. You are the one using convoluted logic and internal contradictions

along with taking fragments of statements and then supplying your own context.


"but has vastly increased the use of chemicals"
...because less chemicals are used on the crops themselves, there are more insects, and weeds, so people annoyed by insects are weeds using the chemicals that aren't being used anymore....(seriously, that's the argument being made).


that is not the argument being made at all. The argument being made is that secondary pests which did not formerly pose a problem to the crop are now posing a problem and farmers are using more chemicals to combat the new pests and the weeds which have evolved to have resistance to roundup.

"Unrelenting Roundup use has caused 11 weed species to evolve glyphosate resistance in 26 U.S. states, with Palmer pigweed and horseweed the most widespread, according to the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. They have invaded 14 million U.S. acres of cotton, soybean, and corn, and that will double by 2015, says Chuck Foresman, Syngenta’s head of corn crop protection. A Dow study this year found as many as 20 million acres of corn and soybeans may already be infested."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/attack-of-the-superweed-09082011.html

"The GM crop is known as Bt cotton, shorthand for the Bacillus thuringiensis gene inserted into the seeds to produce toxins. But these toxins are lethal only to leaf-eating bollworms. After seven years, populations of other insects -- such as mirids -- have increased so much that farmers are now having to spray their crops up to 20 times a growing season to control them, according to the study of 481 Chinese farmers in five major cotton-producing provinces."
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July06/Bt.cotton.China.ssl.html

"and the growth of "superweeds","
...meaning "a weed resistant to a specific weeding method", which is what happens with all weeding methods.


no,it doesn't mean that at all, and it doesn't happen with 'all weeding methods'. you are just making things up now.

as for your last (agreed, hilarious) statement, i can only say, you are boppers if you are seriously comparing anti-gm campaigners to Nazis and eugenics.

[boppers]

18. "comparing anti-gm campaigners to Nazis and eugenics"

Both eugenics and anti-GM:
1. Assume some genetic combinations are somehow better than others.
2. Assert that some genetic combinations are causing damage, and should not be permitted.
3. Stretch data to show disproportionate ill effects created by the "inferior" genetics.
4. They then try to eliminate that genetic variant.

So, do you believe GM is superior, or inferior, or just another genetic variant? How about poor people?(yes, go ahead, I left this here for a reason).... How about Jews?

As far as "and it doesn't happen with 'all weeding methods'. you are just making things up now", I'll assume you had *many* very bad science teachers. So, here's an evolution 101 primer:
1. A species exists, and breeds, and mutates.
2. Something kills off all of one mutated variety.
3. Other mutated varieties may survive, and breed, and mutate.

That's *all* of evolution, in only three steps.

Any form of weeding is subject to it. *ANY*.

Evolution doesn't care, has no direction, and only requires two elements: Mutation and breeding. Since we live on a radioactive planet (thus providing mutation), the only way to totally kill a species (aka all genetic variants) is to wipe out all genetic variants in rapid (10-50 years) time lines.

[PaulaFarrell]

26. again convoluted logic

to support an inane comparison between anti-gm campaigners and eugencists. so do you really think that because i oppose gm i want to kill poor poeple? That's what you're saying (or at least it's as valid an interpretation of what you're saying as your interpretations of what i'm saying).

I agree evolution is fairly simple. Genetic traits either benefit the individual (in which case it's more likely to pass on its genes), harm the individual (in which case it's less likely to pass on it's genes) or have no effect at all. But your leap from there to all weeds evolving resistance to weeding doesn't hold up. It makes a lot of assumptions, for example, that the weeding method leaves viable survivors which will go on to reproduce and pass on the same characteristic, that the same weeding method is used over a large enough sample of the population to affect the gene pool, that only a single weeding method is used so that a single survival trait is crucuial in determing which individuals survive, that the characteristic gives enough of a benefit that it out-competes members of its own species which do not have the trait, to name a few.

The simple fact is, superweeds were predicted, and now they are here, acknowledged even by the companies involved in GM. And the agro-chem solution is to use yet more weedkillers.

[boppers]

47. Strawman.

I did not say you actually want to kill all poor people.

You want to eliminate the species you have determined are "genetically unfit".

Which is eugenics.

As far as the problem of evolving species, you make some good points, but if there were no viable survivors, there would be no "super-weeds" that evolve.

[Crunchy Frog]

32. I can't believe someone is actually arguing the stuff you are.

When it comes to domesticated plants and animals raised for food or other specific purposes, um... some genetic combinations are better than others. Thousands of years of selective breeding and hybridization have gone into producing plants and animals with very specific traits. If specific genetic combinations don't matter, then why is frozen bull semen such a big industry?

And what kind "science" is this statement?

"Since we live on a radioactive planet (thus providing mutation), the only way to totally kill a species (aka all genetic variants) is to wipe out all genetic variants in rapid (10-50 years) time lines."

You know, it took thousands of years for the Neanderthals to be eliminated through encroachment by modern humans (though now I'm thinking one of them may have been missed).

[boppers]

48. When it comes to humans:

is it true that:
"some genetic combinations are better than others"?

That's your statement.

That's also Eugenics.

"You know, it took thousands of years for the Neanderthals to be eliminated through encroachment by modern humans (though now I'm thinking one of them may have been missed)."

"Totally kill" is not species reduction. Of course, the species never completely died, because it could inter-breed with homo-sapiens. Many modern humans are part neanderthal.

[saras]

19. Yep, from bad science to Godwin's law in a single post

Didn't you know, weeds get hoe-resistant, and you have to use a shovel. Then they get shovel-resistant, and you have to use a plow. Then they get plow-resistant, and you have to use a disk cultivator. Then by the time they get resistant to that, they've lost their immunity to being pulled out by hand.

It's a common problem for farmers. That's why they end up with all that excess equipment in their barns.

[boppers]

20. Yay on seeing my Godwin!

Nice follow-up, too.

Thinking on a non-human-lifetime scale, you are actually pretty much correct, if hilariously sarcastic.

We (and nature) have eliminated most of the weeds we dealt with 50,000 years ago, and yet, we still deal with weeds.

Over the years we've inadvertently created many "super-weeds", because as we've evolved, so have they.

Basically, you are making the same error as saying "if monkeys don't give birth to a human, evolution must be false".

[PaulaFarrell]

23. again, you are just making things up

Agriculture began approx. 10,000 years ago. What 'weeds' were we dealing with 50,000 years ago that no longer exist? Given that a weed is just something we don't want to grow on a plot of land, please give me the name of a single 'weed' that humans have eliminited that existed 50,000 years ago. And we haven't created many superweeds with resistance to pesticides over the years (until the last decade or so). We have transplanted plants to areas where they foumd a niche and they have become weeds, but that is not the same thing at all. And no, I don't need a primer on evolution but I think you might. I am not denying evolution - in fact, I'm acknowleding it as I acknowldege the existence of weeds with roundup ready resistance - so I'm really not sure sure where you're coming from, but it's not a science-based place. Your last sentence is just bizarre.

[boppers]

36. I'm guessing you went to college over 30 years ago. n/t

[PaulaFarrell]

38. not quite, but close

what's your point?

[boppers]

46. Because older western history pins agriculture to 10K years ago.

Meanwhile, non-white, non-eurasians, had agricultural practices in the US much earlier than that.

The whole "it only counts if it's white people" problem.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. You really don't understand the difference between crop plants and people?

And the reason for the vastly increased use of chemicals is that they're specifically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide "Roundup", so they can tolerate massive quantities of it without dying. That's the reason for the development of "superweeds" as well. It's a basic principle of natural selection. You throw huge amounts of poison at some organisms, and you will eventually breed strains that are resistant to the poison. I suppose you don't believe in antibiotic resistant bacteria either.

I hate scientific illiteracy!

[boppers]

37. You lost me at "chemicals".

If you fail in chemistry, well. FAIL

[Crunchy Frog]

31. But you are right that ideological advocates don't belong in the sciences.

Your post is an excellent illustration.

[SpiralHawk]

49. You just made stuff up

not scientific at all.

Did you actually read the report?

Sheesh.

[sakabatou]

10. Who didn't see this coming?

Not me.

[defendandprotect]

11. War by Monsanto, Frankenfood by Monsanto -- FDA by Monsanto -- !!!

END MONOPOLIES -- DUST OFF TH EANTI-TRUST LAWS AND LET'S GO --!!!

[Lost-in-FL]

13. Nature 1, Greed 0

How many years did it took?

[scentopine]

17. Monsanto Has Occupied the White House

"We’ll tell ConAgra that it’s not the Department of Agribusiness. It’s the Department of Agriculture. We’re going to put the people’s interests ahead of the special interests."
Candidate Obama, 2007

Obama continues to punch safety and science in the face with Wall Street designed public policy.

Here are a few recent and notable betrayals. What next? Monsanto introduces GMO weeds and then sells you a special weed killer (that only they can produce) to kill it?

We need to stop this shit.

Monsanto Cabal Entrenched in Obama’s White House
But, starting with his choice for USDA Secretary, the pro-biotech former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has let Monsanto, Dupont and the other pesticide and genetic engineering companies know they’ll have plenty of friends and supporters within his administration.

President Obama has taken his team of food and farming leaders directly from the biotech companies and their lobbying, research, and philanthropic arms.

Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods.
Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Islam Siddiqui, Vice President of the Monsanto and Dupont-funded pesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is now the Agriculture Negotiator for the US Trade Representative.
Rajiv Shah, former agricultural-development director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation (a frequent Monsanto partner), served as Obama’s USDA Under Secretary for Research Education and Economics and Chief Scientist and is now head of USAID.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, has been nominated to the Supreme Court.
Now, Ramona Romero, corporate counsel to DuPont, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
(italics added by me) http://www.menwithfoilhats.com/2010/07/monsanto-cabal-entrenched-in-obamas-white-house/

USDA Backs Monsanto, Caves Under White House Pressure
The WSJ reported the Obama administration had been reviewing all government regulation to "weed out" any proposals that are burdensome to businesses, and that the alfalfa decision echoed a larger initiative to restore Obama's credibility with business leaders.
http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/usda-backs-monsanto-caves-under-white-house-pressure/1236

GMO Planting To Begin in More Than 50 Wildlife Refuges
The Obama administration has approved the strategic planting of genetically engineered seeds on more than 50 National Wildlife Refuges in the Midwest as part of region-wide habitat restoration efforts.
...
Anti-GMO groups condemn this decision, citing the risks connected to GM seeds and the already delicate nature of America’s protected wildlife refuges and park lands being affected by climate change, loss of species and pollutants that are contaminating water and soil.
http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/organic/gmo-planting-to-begin-in-more-than-50-wildlife-refuges/

Monsanto, a Lobbyist, a White House Senior Policy Analyst, & some emails.
First to enable a new Obama Administration policy to go forward whereby over 50 MidWest wildlife refuges would be planted with Monsanto genetically engineered crops, having just lost a law suit brought by PEER among others protecting NorthEastern refuges from such contamination, it would be necessary to establish a legal defense against future such law suits ( here are the emails that deal with preparing to defend against future law suits, between a lobbyist and a Senior White House Analyst). Secondly, these machinations were being undertaken to provide a Public Relations whitewash to Monsanto’s GMO crops. In other words…….see, look……these crops are so safe that we are planting them in our wildlife refuges, and when their safety was challenged in our courts, their safety was confirmed, because they prevailed. This PR whitewash is necessary because most of the Eurozone countries want nothing to do with U.S. GMO crops, and since so much of what we now grow are genetically modified organisms, and unlabeled as well, which they also seem to have a problem with……well Monsanto is just having a difficult time increasing their profits in that part of the world.
http://my.firedoglake.com/tucsonrobert1/2011/07/29/monsanto-a-lobbyist-a-white-house-senior-policy-analyst-some-emails/

[EFerrari]

21. US pushing GMOs worldwide

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13395-us-pushing-gmos-worldwide

[boppers]

22. Wow. You know how sometimes, somewhere, you hear words that change your reality?

"Monsanto introduces GMO weeds and then sells you a special weed killer (that only they can produce) to kill it?" .... Did it for me.

I need to think about this one, but I wanted to drop this note here, letting you know that *you* (yes, you, scentopine) have just fundamentally changed my thinking on many topics.

It's akin to Microsoft releasing computer viruses... that only a Microsoft product can stop.

[bvar22]

43. Without Monsanto & Goldman Sachs,

and Republican Re-Treads, Obama wouldn't have much of an administration.

[Little Tich]

24. The report is bogus.

I'm no friend of GMO's, but the report is fundamentally flawed. Sorry.

[sakabatou]

25. How so?

[Little Tich]

34. I admit I only read 13 pages of the 58 page report, but

everything I googled was false or misleading. Most of the sponsoring organisations seem to have an agenda that trumps reality. This is bad science, unforunately. I never thought I would defend Big GM Corps, but here goes:

The report claims that Bt cotton fails to increase yields in India, which is false according to these articles:

http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n1/v8n1a01-morse.htm

http://www.fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/special-topics_ballgame_of_bt_cotton_in_india.html

The report distorts the circumstances for why the Mississippi Seed Arbitration awarded roundup using farmers compensation from Monsanto.

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00132.html

The report claims that Australian research shows that conventional crops outperform GMO crops, with canola being specifically mentioned, something which is easily refuted:

http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/fcp/gmcrops/ministerial_gmo_industry_reference_gm_canola.pdf

http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs99000918/PC12526.pdf

http://www.afaa.com.au/n_gmcanola2010_benefits.asp

The report claims that "super weeds" and "super pests" have "overtaken" millions of acres, which is a gross exaggeration of an existing but easily managed problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?scp=2&sq=roundup&st=cse

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/gwc/gwc-1.pdf

The report doesn't say why Texan farmers sued Monsanto over Bt cotton, wrongly implying that using GMO cotton means using more pesticides.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13339

The report lies about the facts behind pest resistance to Bt cotton, the use of refuges and how significant the problem really is:

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/25jul2011/146.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2007/bollgard-cotton.htm

The report claims that the accidental cross-pollination of rape and a common weed (ssp campestris) will make certain herbicides useless and cause economic problems, which is false:

http://www.weedscience.com/Case/Reference.asp?ReferenceID=232

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r745417017422507/ (not sure if the link is of any use for most people)

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Rhy-SlGjTPgC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=transgenic+denmark+campestris&source=bl&ots=RHyikwyDIK&sig=BKwnr2zx5BhkF6dJr8j7GohExhY&hl=en&ei=ZMWfTtqNLKKaiALQr5mMAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=transgenic%20denmark%20campestris&f=false
(cf page 226)

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=JMW8UloBZqMC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=transgenic+denmark+campestris&source=bl&ots=xye_eTyjzz&sig=x1F26gvQ-fSi4w-f7DUKUTBSqh4&hl=en&ei=ZMWfTtqNLKKaiALQr5mMAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=campestris&f=false
(cf page 83-85)

[boppers]

35. Thank you for your links and efforts.

Defend science first.

Politics later.

[PaulaFarrell]

39. I am sure you did think you would defend GM

otherwise why would you do such an awful lot of research?

I think you are being misleading. You say "The report doesn't say why Texan farmers sued Monsanto over Bt cotton, wrongly implying that using GMO cotton means using more pesticides."

But the report doesn't say that. It does give the reason Monsanto was taken to court - because farmers had to use pesticide in spite of being told that they wouldn't with bt cotton. It doesn't say 'more pesticides' at all (at least not on page 14 where the case is mentioned, like you, I didn't read the whole thing). So who's lying? Clearly both you and the report are putting their own spin on things. However, at least the report is honest about where it's coming from.

[Little Tich]

44. This is not a defence of GMO, but rather a debunking of bad science.

From “THE GMO EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES, A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs – False Promises, Failed Technologies. Synthesis Report” page 13, 1st paragraph:

“The primary justification for the genetic
engineering of Bt into crops is that this will
reduce the use of insecticides. Bt cotton is among
the ‘miracles’ being pushed by corporations like
Monsanto as a solution to the pesticide crisis. One
of the Monsanto brochures had a picture of a few
worms and stated, “You will see these in your
cotton and that’s O.K. Don’t spray.” However, in
Texas, Monsanto faced a lawsuit filed by 25 farmers
over Bt cotton planted on 18,000 acres which
suffered cotton bollworm damage and on which
farmers had to use pesticides in spite of corporate
propaganda that genetic engineering meant an end
to the pesticide era. In 1996, two million acres in
the US were planted with Monsanto’s transgenic
Bollgard cotton.”

The report is deliberately misleading, and the section about the Texan farmers implies that the lawsuit is somehow connected to Monsanto’s claim that use of Roundup resistant cotton will reduce use of pesticides. The lawsuit is not connected to that, it's rather the fact that Roundup resistant cotton is useless in conjunction with Roundup when it's hot and dry. This is a recurring problem with Roundup products due to it's chemical makeup, and cannot be altered. There are procedures which can mitigate this problem however.

The link I provided ( http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13339 )is adequate for showing that the climate together with inbuilt deficiencies in Roundup were the reasons for the lawsuit and nothing else.

Now I didn't spend much time researching the subject, maybe half an hour at the most. I read about 5 pages of the text and when every claim I checked was wrong I gave up. The Google is an amazing tool.

[SpiralHawk]

50. This is a debunking of your Bad Debunking

[PaulaFarrell]

41. and when you say you read 13 pages

given the first 11 pages are just photos, TOC, etc. does that mean you read 2 pages of a 47-page report or did you rad pages 11-23?

[No Elephants]

27. Too late. Because of things like wind and bees, engineered seeds contaminates plants.

This was argued by organic growers in a SCOTUS case involving Monsanto's alfalfa seed.

The FDA had illegally approved sale of Monsanto seed without an EPA required by federal law. Apparently, Monsanto was in too much of a hurry to start selling its seed to wait for the EPA study.

Instead of weighing in on the side of the law requiring an EPA study, the Obama administration chose to weigh in on the side of illegal action on the part of the FDA.

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2010/may/14/supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan-goes-bat-monsant/

I don't know what happened with the alfalfa seed. I do know that farmers as far south as Oxaca, Mexico had reported genetic alteration of their corn crops, crops cultivated organically for thousands of years at least as far back as 2002. http://www.zcommunications.org/genetically-modified-organisms-threaten-indigenous-corn-by-sara-desantis

The Mexicans called it the second Conguest, likening it to the invasion of Mexico by the Conquistadores of Spain.



Your tax dollars at work--to keep Monsanto and its peers healthy.

[No Elephants]

28. Thanks for yet another great thread, kpete.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Yes, but they make some people shitloads of money, and that's the important thing.

[era veteran]

33. Practice Rodale, fuck Monsanto, n/t

[glowing]

40. Time to get rid of them and try to preserve whatever original seed we still have.

It will be hard, as the GM seeds have spread into field after field, contaminating organic crops. An epic failure on the part of the wealthy who like to play god with engineering food that is resistant to chemicals being dumped on them, that take more fertilizers, strip more nutrients from the soil, and consume lots of water... There is a reason why Bill Gates has his own "seed safe" of natural foods tucked away.

[JoeyT]

42. The problem isn't so much genetic engineering

as it is the people that are in charge of doing it.

Most crops aren't being engineered to produce larger yields or grow in areas that wouldn't support them previously, they're being engineered to bring labor costs down and to increase resistance to herbicides.

[Little Tich]

45. Quite right.