Monsanto
Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, agriculture, biotechnology, and the farmer.
Mar 02, 2009 | Read | 80 Comments » Tags: GMO Label, GMO Labeling, Jeffrey Smith, Monsanto
Author: Monsantoco I don’t trust surveys or petitions (really a type of survey). I’ve taken graduate courses on survey design and still, I can never look survey results or petitions without some level of skepticism. In my opinion and experience, surveys are best utilized when they deal with a very targeted subject matter, and presented to an audience who knows that subject matter well. Petitions are best taken with several grains of salt.
First, survey results and petition signatures are far too dependent upon how the question or issue is worded and presented, and to who it is presented. Its way too easy to design surveys and petitions that, intentionally or unintentionally, influence the response. The comedians Penn and Teller do a good job of demonstrating how this can be done in this YouTube segment dealing with the toxin dihydrogen monoxide.
Second, survey results and petition signatures often reflect not only the opinion of the survey population, but of their general knowledge, or lack thereof, of the subject matter. Take for instance the survey that questioned people on their preference for DNA-free food. While a bit tongue-in-cheek, the survey revealed that 28% of respondents (sample size of 2239) stated they would pay 50% more for food that is DNA-free. You could argue that this survey shows that people want meals that are free of DNA. A more compelling argument would be that we need to seriously overhaul our science education programs*.
I bring all this up because long-time anti-biotech activists and yogic flying instructor Jeffrey Smith has been pushing the new administration for mandatory labeling of GMO foods, and has been circulating an online petition. His main justification for this? He describes a survey which indicates that 90% of Americans favor labeling of GMO foods. I have not seen this particular survey (Smith does not provide a reference). Regardless, I have yet to see a survey on this topic that could be considered scientific, and where the questions could not be considered to be “leading”. Further, I know for a fact that nowhere near 90% of Americans have been exposed to enough serious debate on this topic to have an informed opinion. Few are aware of the following facts:
I suspect that the results of Smith’s survey would have been quite different if those surveyed were aware of these four simple facts.
Smith’s suggestion that FDA change a long standing labeling policy based on an unidentified survey is sheer political theater. Surveys and Petitions serve a legitimate, but very limited function – to create discussion. Policy formation takes in-depth research, expert opinion and a lot of critical thinking by seasoned policy makers. The issue of GM food labeling has already taken place in the US. The consensus and determination is that labeling of all GMO foods makes about as much sense as banning water or ensuring DNA-free school lunches.
* For the approximately 28% of readers who apparently will not get why, please note that DNA is present in all living things, and almost all food (especially the healthy suff). Each cell contains about 9 feet of DNA and every meal approximately 93,205 miles of DNA.
Other links:
http://johnwphipps.blogspot.com/2008/12/birth-of-fact.html
Category: At Monsanto
Tags: GMO Label, GMO Labeling, Jeffrey Smith, Monsanto
Kate, I don’t think this really addresses my request. I don’t see any data at all–only a brief outline of (hopefully some of) what Monsanto does. Perhaps I am just not seeing them; are Monsanto’s scientific safety studies and data listed here?
Deborah, while I am speaking in support of Monsanto, I have no capability to speak FOR Monsanto. So I’m sorry, I cannot answer the questions you ask of me.
Deborah wrote:
” If you don’t want to pay for the infrastructure, your company should not have altered the dna.”
I meant I as a consumer, not I as an “advocate” for Monsanto. (And it’s not really “my company”.) Because, in the end, Monsanto (or even the US Govt.) won’t be paying for any new labels, GM or otherwise. It will be the purchasers of those goods. Not to mention we already HAVE a “Non-GM” label: “Organic”.
Deborah also wrote:
“I don’t see why writing several words will increase packaging–that’s hyperbole at best.”
Sorry if I was unclear. The point I was trying to make with any or many of my analogies was, Deborah wants several words added for what SHE “has CONSIDERED to be a POTENTIAL safety issue”
[caps emphasis mine]
Ralph ALSO wants several words added for HIS pet potential safety issue, as does Bart, and myself. All for POTENTIAL safety issues. If “we” add a label for EVERY potential safety issue, it is not hyperbole. And if we add one only for YOURS, that is favoritism at best.
And as several incidents in the past year or so have illustrated, having a govt. label on a product says very little about it’s real safety.
Deborah also wrote:
“I should have the final word over what I choose to eat and feed my family.”
Deborah, the only way to TRULY have the final word over what you choose to eat and feed your family is to grow and process it all yourself. Otherwise, you have to place your trust in Monsanto, Syngenta, the US government, or some other “corporate” entity, and give THEM the final word. Again, my personal feeling is Monsanto et al. are more trustworthy than the US government.
And if you choose to grow and process all of your own food, I applaud your decision. I am teaching my children how to garden as well as can their own food, but still, we are then placing the final word in the hands of the Burpee Seed Company, the Ball Jar Company, or other entities.
Now, Deborah, since you called me on the carpet for dodging your question, I would like to restate mine:
Current estimates are we will have 9,000,000,000 people on the planet (50% more than the turn of the century) by 2050. Without GM food, how do you plan to feed all of them?
Mica wrote:
“Who then wins out in this argument? A difficult problem to solve.”
I agree it is a difficult problem to solve, but I disagree with the premise that this argument can be “won”. The opinions of Deborah et al. are just as valid as mine. Likely NEITHER set represents “the truth”, whatever that is. But they are how we feel, and I for one respect that.
I would like to echo your comment of appreciation that everyone has remained civil and engaged, as opposed to “stomping off” in frustration.
Kate provided:
[two very good links]
Thanks, Kate. I was looking for something like that but couldn’t find it.
Although, to play devil’s advocate, while those articles describe the PROCESS, they do not, as Deborah requested, provide any actual DATA. But, to go that extra step, neither would a label. ;^)
Touche.
Mica, sorry, didn’t mean to shut you down. I know you were just trying to encourage us to keep the interchange going.
It’s not important (to me at least) if I win. What is important is that the dialog continue, and we keep striving for understanding of “the other side”. Deborah et al. present their arguments well and civilly, and I can see where they are coming from, I just don’t agree with them.
For example, from my vantage point, most of “their” arguments are backed up with articles written around 2000, and we have nine more years of experience to draw from, which I feel (rightly or wrongly) they are ignoring. Since I live on a continent that didn’t “exist” 550 years ago, I find dated information to be suspect. And the state of the art for GM organisms is changing so fast, nine years is a LONG time.
But I have seen a lot of posts in other blogs here where people have already made up their minds as to what the “truth” (or at least their own personal truth) is, and they pay no attention to the points the other side (from EITHER side) is trying to make. And that saddens me.
I’d rather we ALL win, and if that means I’m proven wrong, I’m a big enough person to admit it. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’m wrong on a daily basis! ;^)
Monsanto is more trustworthy than the US Government? What an interesting concept.
In reading these blogs and the responses (particularly from the happy Monsanto employees) I see a substantial amount of intellectually dishonest debate tactics and tossing around of pseudoscience disguised as legitimate science. Since most laypeople do not understand the difference between pseudoscience and actual science, I guess you have found some way to justify this approach.
Money talks, but nature ALWAYS bats last!
Somewhere on here, someone mentioned frankenfood, and a happy Monsanto employee chimed in with the poor quality of literary knowledge based on the idea that the monster was not REALLY a monster, but in fact was perceived as a monster. Could it not be that the “frankenfood” nickname corresponds instead with Dr. Frankenstein himself, who was mad with power and the idea of playing God? He didn’t patent his creations though.
When you have invested heavily in a biotech education, I guess you have to rationalize it somehow. Good luck with that.
Очень интересно. Но чего-то не хватает. Может быть, стоит добавить каких-нибудь картинок или фото?
—-
Translated via Google Translate:
Very interesting. But something was missing. Maybe add some pictures or photos?
John, please consider my question about releasing the Monsanto safety studies now redirected to whoever has that authority at Monsanto to release them.
****************
You said that we already have a non-GM label, “organic.” But as we discussed here or on the “Either/Or” thread, that isn’t really a guarantee and the standards are continuously being eroded to accomodate GM contamination.
John, if you did some research and came to the conclusion, along with other respected scientists who have come to this conclusion–that gm foods are not understood well enough to be considered safe and may have even been proven unsafe in independent experiments, would you want a label? Would you want to see a moratorium on GM crops?
Also, I am wondering what continent you live on–the one that did not “exist” 550 years ago? That is certainly news to me. What do you mean by that? Also, please consider the gmo development protocol that Tom Nickeson (at Monsanto) directed me to–with the accompanying dates (I was a bit taken aback by the dates–was hoping for more up-to-date revisions since many of the intial presumptions–gene flow, etc–have been disproven, but am checking it out just the same.):
“If possible, check out some of these references and let me know your questions especially specific criticisms you referred to earlier.
National Research Council. 1989. Field Testing Genetically Modified Organism – Framwork for Decisions. National Academy Press. 170 pages.
Tiedje, JM. et al. 1989. The planned introduction of genetically engineered organism: Ecological considerations and recommendations. Ecology, 70, 298-315.
OECD. 1987. Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris. 74 pages (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/34/40986855.pdf)
OECD. 1993. Safety Consideration for Biotechnology: Scale-up of Crop Plants. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris. 40 pages (also available on the web from OECD)”
*******************
And finally, what evidence is there that we need GM to feed the world? I have not seen any. However, I have seen many independent and governmental groups come to just the opposite conclusion–with very recent dates (extra credit: Do you know when the entire corn genome was decoded? Was it before Monsanto and others started genetically engineering corn?):
http://www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/publications/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_2007_15.pdf
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), through their joint Capacity-Building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development (CBTF), take food security very seriously and have joined forces to contribute to the search for sustainable solutions.
This study examines the relationship between organic agriculture and food security in Africa, particularly East Africa, which is where the CBTF has been implementing a project on organic agriculture since 2004. Organic agriculture is a holistic production system based on active agro-ecosystem management rather than on external inputs, and it utilizes both traditional and scientific knowledge.
The evidence presented in this study supports the argument that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.
This is in line with the findings of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security, held in May 2007.
Therefore, we encourage policymakers and development cooperation partners in Africa and around the world to take a new look at this promising production system with fresh eyes. It offers not only improved food security, but also an array of other economic, environmental, health and social benefits.
further references:
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/129727/u.n._seeks_a_green_revolution_in_food/
http://www.agassessment.org/
как сказал один очень умный человек которого мы все хорошо знаем )
Я спросил у мудрейшего: “Что ты извлёк
Из своих манускриптов?” И он мне изрёк:
“Счастлив тот, кто в объятьях красавицы нежной
По ночам от премудростей книжных далёк”.
—-
Translated via Google Translate:
as one very clever man whom we all know)
I asked a wise man: “What have you learned
Because of their manuscripts? “And he spake to me:
“I am happy that those who embrace the beautiful soft
At night the book is far from wisdom. “
Неплохой пост, но много лишнего.
—-
Translated via Google Translate:
Nice post, but a lot of excess.
Deborah said:
“You said that we already have a non-GM label, “organic.” But as we discussed here or on the “Either/Or” thread, that isn’t really a guarantee and the standards are continuously being eroded to accomodate GM contamination. ”
Deborah, this confuses me. Are you arguing FOR or AGAINST another label? Aren’t your criticisms of the “Organic” label just as applicable to other labels?
Deborah said:
“Also, I am wondering what continent you live on–the one that did not “exist” 550 years ago? That is certainly news to me. What do you mean by that?”
Sorry I was being obtuse. The point I weas trying to make was, ten years ago, GM was considered “untested”. In the intervening years, there has been enough research to satisfy me (at least) that GM foods are at least as safe as the rest of our foodstream. Just like 550 years ago, the Americas didn’t “exist”. In the intervening years, there has been enough research to prove that they DO in fact exist. Data more than 10 years old in the GM industry is of little more than historic interest.
The genetics of cattle, sheep, pigs, corn, cotton, wheat, apples, tomatoes, peppers, and roses have been modified for CENTURIES. But they were modified using selective breeding, which is VERY slow and hit or miss. Selective breeding can take GENERATIONS to produce even a measurable (but still not commercially useful) change in the genetics of an organism. GM can bring a trait from concept THROUGH testing, regulation, and validation and to commercial production in about a decade. My understanding of current GM food products is those genes already exist in nature and in (some) foodstreams, just not in the organism in question. But if you eat un-farmed fish, you run the risk of eating an organism that spontaneously mutated, exposing you to proteins, etc. that no one has been exposed to before. To me, there is no difference.
Deborah asked:
“And finally, what evidence is there that we need GM to feed the world?”
To quote from one of your references:
(u.n._seeks_a_green_revolution_in_food/?page=2)
* Up to 25 percent of the world’s food production may be lost due to ‘environmental breakdowns’ by 2050 unless action is taken. Already, cereal yields have stagnated worldwide and fish catches are declining.
I’ll grant that they also cite some possibilities that may counter this. But my interpretation of those possibilities is they will take a lot of work and cost to implement.
The numbers I have seen indicate we need to do SOMETHING in the next 40 years to be able to feed 9,000,000,000 people in 2050. You are right that it doesn’t HAVE to be GM, but I’d be interested to see YOUR numbers of the yields and acres necessary to feed 9,000,000,000 by 2050, compared to the numbers we have today. And also how you plan to get from today’s numbers to the 2050 numbers WITHOUT GM (in the next 40 years), and who is going to pay for that effort?
So it doesn’t get lost in that paragraph, I’ll restate:
I’d be interested to see YOUR numbers of the yields and acres necessary to feed 9,000,000,000 by 2050, compared to the numbers we have today.
(And by YOUR, I don’t require you specifically to develop them. They don’t have to even be from a “Non-GM” source. Just numbers that you agree with.)
Diane – surely then we’d be Frankensanto or such, rather than the food being frankenfood – which has the benefit of being a nice soundbite, and playing into the portrayal of GM food as a monstosity.
Deborah – I’m going to go ahead and say last year (28th of Feb), here in St Louis. But what the date of sequencing of the corn genome has to do with genetically modifying corn is not exactly clear -it is however clear that with this knowledge both GM driven research in corn and molecular breeding have gained a spectacularly useful tool for further work.
Also the UN study on african food security was interesting – but as has been stated numerous times, GM tech isnt viewed as THE solution, just part of the solution – what I think would further bolster the implementation of ‘organic’ farming in africa would be the use of certain GM traited crops in that environment – implementation of a both of best worlds policy would in my mind probably be a great step forward in alleviating hunger and poverty in those areas (conventional ag would be hard to implement in areas with little or no fertilizer availability, so obviously organic methods such as using animal manure to fertilize would be great – combine this with drought resistant or insect resistant tech plants (as I’d guess access to manufactured ‘organic’ pesticides would be severely limited also) and the benefits reaped could be enormous. (I’d personally love to see GM accepted as part of ‘organic’ systems at some time in the next few decades as there truly is no reason to tie it specifically to industrialized input heavy agriculture – perhaps at some point in the production of the second trillion meals containing GM the safety regarding the technology will become accepted to this extent)
Just for clarification, I would also like to restate two points:
We don’t need GM to feed the increasing world population if it is inherently unsafe for consumption and/or the environment. Can we have the safety studies released by Monsanto put up for public scientific peer-review? First we must establish that GM crops are safe, or we certainly do not need them for anything at all.
Does Monsanto allow any scientist interested in researching a gm line and an isogenic non-gm line access to those samples? Are farmers prohibited from giving scientists samples?
*********************
My further, more detailed reply to John about feeding the estimated population of 2050 will be a different post. But I still have not seen your evidence that GM can do it–only promises of inventions that do not exist and may never exist. So it seems you are asking me to find plans to feed an estimated population in a worst case scenario that is better than the plan you have not proven. Must my plan be based on proven technologies, unlike yours; or may I take liberties such as you have?
I’d love to see biotech put their scientists and logistics specialists to work right now, formulating a plan to feed Everyone on this Planet today–when and where we have the food. It is a tangible challenge, concrete in nature, a noble focus of energy.
If Monsonto thinks that their GM food is safe for consuming then they should not be afraid to label their products, I think the are worried that the public will refuse to purchase their product. The world would be a much safer place if toxic products like round-up did not exist. If people knew that people who use round-up has high risks of parkinson’s disease. Another problem with GM seed is if the wind blows in infects other farmers crops. I also do not think that a company should be able to patent food, control food, not good for the future of food.
Deborah said:
“We don’t need GM to feed the increasing world population if it is inherently unsafe for consumption and/or the environment.”
OK, I accept your premise. I don’t AGREE with it, but I accept it as a premise to frame a conversational position.
How DO you propose to feed them, then? What vields and planted acreage are you proposing will do the job, and how will you get those numbers?
I acknowledge you don’t like “my” solution. That’s the EASY part. What do you propose in it’s stead?
“me” said (among other things):
“The world would be a much safer place if toxic products like round-up did not exist.”
[I hesitate to legitimize your post by responding, but here goes.]
Actually, one of the big selling points of Glyphosate (the main active ingredient in RoundUP) is it ISN’T all that toxic. Most herbicides exist for a LONG TIME in the environment, sometimes YEARS. Glyphosate is broken down by naturally occuring bacteria in DAYS.
Not to mention things like cyanide, arsenic, and botulin are naturally occuring toxins. Heck, WATER is toxic in large enough amounts. Search for “water intoxication” for more details.
I’ll let others adress your other “points”….
Deborah, sorry it took me so long to find this link.
You asked:
“And finally, what evidence is there that we need GM to feed the world?”
Here it is, from a non-Monsanto source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm
John, I don’t see any evidence, only one person’s opinion. Where is the proof? Is it based on the as yet unproven technology biotech says can do the job? How will GM feed the world? I read recently that food flows in the direction of economic demand, not hunger—and that I believe.
In 2050, you say we will feed more people than we can actually feed now, people we have the food for, but choose not to feed, or can not/WILL not get food to–but at the same time, we can invade distant countries, bail out Wall Street with a trillion plus dollars, launch satellites, genetically engineer food crops and burn them up for fuel while people are starving to death right now…And Monsanto is pushing South Africa and other nations to grow biofuels.
How will things be any different in 2050, John–unless things change in the direction of a sustainable future; the land and seas will be more degraded, the climate is unpredictable, the population is unpredictable, social unrest is unpredictable. I will wager that poverty will still be around. Can the hungry and starving wait until 2050 to see if the GM plan works? The time is up for some already. How will things change if we continue on this unsustainable path of industrial farming, trade imbalances, the overall type of industrialization we in developed nations practice and overconsume?
From Environmental Science: Toward a Sustainable Future, 2008, Richard T. Wright:
“Although India has been self-sufficient in food since 1990, one-fifth of the population suffers from malnutrition because they can’t afford to purchase the food they need, and there is no safety net….
No new science or technology is needed to alleviate hunger and at the same time promote sustainability as we grow our food. The solutions lie in the realm of political and social action at all levels of responsibility… If we respect human dignity and have a sense of social justice, we must agree that hunger is an affront to both. The right to food must be considered a basic human right.”
++++++++++++++
Devinder Sharma said, “In 2000, India had record food surplus of 44 million tons. By 2002, the surplus had grown to 65 million tons, not due to excess production, but because more and more people [at least 1/5] are unable to buy the grain that lies stockpiled.” [contrast, 1/4 or 25% in the US are Clinically Obese--there is a problem other than a shortage of food!]
++++++++++++++++
According to Miguel A. Altieri, “In 1999, enough grain was produced globally to feed a population of Eight Billion People [and that is just grain, not fruits, and vegetables, etc]…By channeling one-third of the grain produced world-wide to needy people, hunger would cease instantly.
*******************
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/129727/u.n._seeks_a_green_revolution_in_food/
“Changing the ways in which food is produced, handled and disposed of across the globe — from farm to store and from fridge to landfill — can both feed the world’s rising population and help the environmental services that are the foundation of agricultural productivity in the first place,” says a new study titled ‘The Environmental Food Crisis’ released by the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP).
The major findings of the study include:
The 100-year trend of falling food prices may be at an end, and food prices may increase by 30-50 percent within decades, with critical impacts for those living in extreme poverty who spend up to 90 percent of their income on food.
Up to 25 percent of the world’s food production may be lost due to ‘environmental breakdowns’ by 2050 unless action is taken. Already, cereal yields have stagnated worldwide and fish catches are declining.
Today, over one third of the world’s cereals are being used as animal feed, rising to 50 percent by 2050. Continuing to feed cereals to growing numbers of livestock will aggravate poverty and environmental degradation.
The amount of fish bycatch currently discarded at sea — estimated at 30 million tonnes annually — could alone sustain more than a 50 percent increase in fish farming and aquaculture production, which is needed to maintain per capita fish consumption at current levels by 2050 without increasing pressure on an already stressed marine environment.
Losses and food waste in the United States could be as high as 40-50 percent, according to some recent estimates. Up to one quarter of all fresh fruits and vegetables in the U.S. is lost between the field and the table.
In Australia, it is estimated that food waste makes up half of that country’s landfill. Almost one-third of all food purchased in Britain every year is not eaten.
Food losses in the developing world are also considerable, mainly due to spoilage and pests. For instance, in Africa, the total amount of fish lost through discards, post-harvest loss and spoilage may be around 30 percent of landings.
**********************
Please see the IAASTD report 2008 that I directed you to above, did you read it, John?
http://www.agassessment.org/
***********************
http://scidev.net/en/news/conservation-agriculture-boosts-yields-and-incom.html
Poor farmers in developing countries can substantially improve both their yields and livelihoods by adopting resource-conserving practices, says a large international study to be published next month.
The study reviewed 286 recent attempts to introduce such practices on more than 12 million farms in 57 countries, mostly in Africa.
It assessed how yields change when farmers using approaches such as less tilling to conserve soil, integrated pest management — which favours ecological pest control over pesticide spraying — and improved management of soil nutrients.
According to the study, adopting such approaches meant yields increased by an average of 79 per cent and harvests of some crops such as maize, potatoes and beans doubled.
As well as causing less damage to the environment, ‘conservation agriculture’ also improved farmers’ wealth by, for instance, reducing their reliance on costly pesticides.
Sustainable farming practices also demand less water, says lead researcher Jules Pretty of the University of Essex, United Kingdom, who points out that by 2025 most developing countries are predicted to face water shortages.
The study concludes that while it is not clear whether these techniques can meet future food needs in developing countries, poor households have most to gain from adopting them.
++++++++++++++++
So, John, I must honestly say I do not know in what condition our Earth will be in 2050–I can only hope we get on a more sustainable path immediately. I know many who are personally working toward that end and trying to adjust their lifestyles within the system. But the system has to change. It is not sustainable, Can you see that? I do not know what the population will be, if 9 billion people will exceed the Earth’s carrying capacity. How could I know–it will depend on the choices we made yesterday, the ones we make today, and those that we will make tomorrow. We have to be proactive with a comprehensive, sustainable plan across the board, and not just continue reacting from crisis to crisis with even more problematic techno fixes. I believe we must work diligently to make all of our systems–food, energy, consumption, industry, finance, trade, society, etc, sustainable. Otherwise, I fear 2050 may bring a world in which none of us will want to live. In that short of a time. We should have been transitioning decades ago; but we must start now.
In the only honest answer I can give you regarding how we will feed whatever the population of 2050 is, I will say that I hope we do not feed the people like we do today. We have to find a balance and redefine our values because our brothers and sisters and their children and parents are starving to death right now while food is rotting in the landfills of every nation. And our life-support system, this planet, its atmosphere, the intrinsically beautiful web of living creatures and systems are being severely degraded, if not destroyed. I do not believe GM is the answer, John. It may perpetuate itself, but it is not sustainable in my view and that of many others.
Ewan Ross Says:
April 6, 2009 at 10:10 am
Deborah – I’m going to go ahead and say last year (28th of Feb), here in St Louis [is when the corn genome was sequenced]. But what the date of sequencing of the corn genome has to do with genetically modifying corn is not exactly clear -it is however clear that with this knowledge both GM driven research in corn and molecular breeding have gained a spectacularly useful tool for further work.
————————-
Ewan, this is the first time I have ever agreed with you that I can recall. It is not at all clear what the sequencing of the corn genome 15 years or so after the introduction of genetically engineered corn really means. It is not clear.
Deborah,
Thanks your for the very well worded and reasoned response. I agree with most of it. I’m not sure it is realistic to expect Dr. Federoff to provide her data to the BBC, or the BBC to present it to us, however.
The few differences I had were:
1. Monsanto cannot affect all of the changes you request, even though I agree most of them will be necessary. But Monsanto is doing what it can to address them. Some may not agree with Monsanto’s actions, but at least Monsanto is taking action.
2. My (oversimplified) understanding is most of the situations where food is sitting in warehouses while people are starving are because their governments (or the individuals in power) won’t disemminate the food to them. I’m not sure what Monsanto, or even the US Govt. or the UN can legally do about that.
3. You present GM crops and sustainability as an either/or situation. I don’t think that is the case. In fact, Monsanto has a big initiative going for improving yield while decreasing the inputs required. I thought Monsanto had a Blog here about sustainability, but the best I could find is
http://blog.monsantoblog.com/page/11/
More information can be found at
http://www.monsanto.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report/2008/sustainability.asp
John,
I saw this wonderful episode of Independent Lens and think it gives a lot of insight into the interdependent environmental, social, and food issues in Africa–at least in Kenya. GMO’s are not mentioned, but the issues are well presented. I thought you might be interested.
Viewer discretion is advised due to violence.
Let Wangari Maathai tell in her own words what went wrong and what was done to correct it. We see this similar cash crop system, resource grab going on all over the developing world. What does it leave the people and the country with? Who really benefits?
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/takingroot/film.html
John,
I would like to suggest that Monsanto start a sustainability thread–why they believe their products are sustainable for the future of OUR planet, OUR people, and OUR biodiversity.
Why should governments and their people–ourselves included–invest in Monsanto’s “promises in the pipeline” when we have proven methods of sustainable farming today that increase yields, decrease inputs, conserve and improve soil, and actually get food to hungry people? And do not require such expensive research and operating expenses?
The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S384, which mandates biotech research (and its financing one would assume) as part of US aid is being debated right now in Congress. So many here at Monsanto do not want to pay for gmo labeling, yet Monsanto and the government want us, the American people, to pay for more biotech research? Who will really benefit from this scheme? And how effective have gmo’s proven in reducing world hunger? Why should we expect that to change in the future?
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17603.cfm
The funding the Lugar-Casey bill mandates is essentially a subsidy to private research and development goals: it has nothing to do with reducing hunger. Public money will go to U.S. corporations to produce patented products, essentially subsidizing risky projects and privatizing gain in the name of charity.
Deborah, I’d like for you to suggest that, also.
Somewhere on this (and every Monsanto blog) page is a “Topic Suggestions” link, but for ease of use here is a link to where it takes you:
http://blog.monsantoblog.com/monsanto-according-to-monsanto/suggestion-box/
Another reason to do so is I think Monsanto is implementing a 10-day limit to author’s responses to existing blogs. It is VERY possible “Brad” is no longer reading (or at least responding) to this thread.
Brad says he doesn’t trust surveys or petitions and yet this blog regularly uses surveys to support Monsanto’s side of the story.
David,
Kindly point to where Monsanto references a survey in this blog. If you could be more specific, it would help to respond. I can’t find any such uses of surveys.