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 18, 2009 | Read | 78 Comments » Tags: biotech, Drought Tolerance, Water use, Why we do need GM food, Why we need GM Food
Author: Monsantoco From time to time we all start wondering how our life would be without the things we consider indispensable (no, I am not talking about your BlackBerry!!!). As the list gets longer and longer and we all keep getting used to this comfortable life, we do not realize how important everyday things are in our life until–for some reason–we lose them.
This morning was freezing at home, so I put on my robe and ran quickly to the bathroom to take a hot shower. I closed the door, turned on the lights (that is the correct order so I don’t wake my wife up–as she instructed me), got into the shower, spun the water knob and voilà–there was no water!!! I completely freaked out. It was not only about the shower, and the shaving, and the cleaning teeth, and the hot tea–it was everything!!! I was stuck there and boy it was cold!
Suddenly, I realized I had spent two days researching and writing stuff about bio-fuels, wind and solar power, and some other alternative sources of energy, but the truth is we have no substitute for water.
The UN says it is predictable, if present consumption patterns continue, two out of three people will live in drought or water-stressed conditions by 2025 (yes, less than 20 years from now). And it is not about having a hot shower every morning, it is about surviving.
Did you know agriculture is accountable for about 70 percent of all fresh water withdrawals? I certainly didn’t. The problem is, since global population keeps growing, more water will be required for domestic and industrial use, so it will be impossible for farmers to keep up this rate of consumption.
Water shortages throughout critical times of the growing season are going to be a major problem for farmers around the world. Climate changes are also expected to lead to drier conditions and more frequent droughts in some parts of the world. Agriculture must find a way to reduce the use of water and increase the yields to face the growing demand for crops for both food and fuel–at the same time. So, without water you are not going to have food either, but do not worry, the odds are you are not going to starve to death; you are more likely to dehydrate first.
Over the last several years, the ag industry has focused biotech resources and expertise on the discovery and development of drought-tolerant traits and, again, Monsanto is leading the crusade. Its pipeline of biotech crops is focused on environmental-stress adaptation. Included in the pipeline are drought-tolerant crops and nitrogen-efficiency genes. Drought-tolerant crops are designed to provide greater yield stability in years when crops would otherwise suffer due to drought conditions. These products will take some of the risk out of farming in both developed and developing countries. Nitrogen-use efficiency can potentially contribute to a significant reduction of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining high grain yield at lower nitrogen levels.
GM crops that are drought resistant may be grown by farmers around the world within 4-5 years. Drought-tolerant oilseed rape plants have been in field trials in the Mid-West, Colorado and California for four years now and are at the most advanced stage of development. A drought-tolerant variety of maize has been tested too, but only for about two years. Also, biotechnologists are working on modifications for more efficient water use, larger seeds, heat tolerance and increased biomass.
The biotech industry has found a way to decrease the use of water for future generations and let agriculture keep providing food resources for the world growing population. Now, it is time for us improve our abilities to reduce our water consumption.
10 Reasons We Do Need GM Foods
Santiago is a Manager of Public Affairs at Monsanto. He was born and raised in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Public Relations, post-graduate studies in Social Communication & Media and an MBA in Marketing Management. Prior to working at Monsanto, Santiago taught PR for almost seven years while working as a Communications Advisor for several organizations and industries. He also worked for a multi-national IT company and an Oil & Gas company as PR Manager.
Category: News and Views
Tags: biotech, Drought Tolerance, Water use, Why we do need GM food, Why we need GM Food
Christa asked:
“Can you name one thing that Monsanto has given us in GMO food crops that can appeal to consumers? Can you name one thing that biotechnology has given us that we could not have gotten in another way (hand weeding, spray Bt, crop rotation, etc)?”
I’d be glad to, and thanks for asking!
Firstly, crop rotation happens even for GM crops, or at least it does with smart farmers, so that is a non-issue.
How much of your income do you spend on food? If you are like most US citizens, it’s somewhere near 10%, I’ve been told. And I’ve also been told, but I have to admit I haven’t personally asked any of them, that most 3rd world farmers spend 50% to 90% of their income on food. So there’s one thing.
But I’m feeling generous, so let me list a few others, just so the benefit is clear. Besides driving up the COST of food, have you ever spent time hand-weeding a large field? This is something I HAVE done, and I have NO desire to do it again. It is literally back-breaking work.
BT spraying also adds cost, and it is what is called “non-specific”, in the sense that, besides killing the targetted pest species, it may well kill non-harmful or even beneficial species. Spraying is also subject to drift and weather. Whereas “BT” GM crops only harm insects that actually consume some part of the plant, which by definition makes them a pest. So, decreased environmental impact and greater bio-diversity are yet more “things”.
Thanks again for the questions, and glad I could be of help!
Christa,
On the subsidies – as far as I am aware corn receives subsidies which drive the preponderance of corn growth throughout the US (both GM and non-GM) – I dont have particularly good information on this as my only current source was Michael Pollan’s “Omnivores Dilemma” so perhaps someone else can weigh in with some counter arguements to this (and I’m moderately troubled by using information from a book which vaguely suggests that there might be something to the idea that fungi use “lunar energy” in contrast to plants which use solar…)
The problem then lies with the use of corn as a commodity, which predates GM tech by decades, aswell as balancing free market economics with the need for food security (I may be mistaken in the case of the US, but I am pretty sure that the now controvertial subsidies awarded to farmers in the UK stem from the need to maintain an agricultural framework in the country to act as a safety net in times of international trouble)
This also poses the question :- if all farm subsidies were removed would this necessarily be a good thing for any side of the GM vs non-GM debate? For US farmers to continue growing corn global pricing would have to increase hugely – which probably wouldnt happen to the extent required, while there would remain a demand for the products made from corn (which in terms of US industrial agriculture is pretty much everything – HFCS, livestock(I rather enjoy Pollan’s description of a Chicken McNuggets as corn battered corn fried in corn and served with corn), various oils, additives – not to mention ethanol used to keep dependance on foreign oil somewhat down)
These would have to come from somewhere, and the cheaper the source the better – what is the alternative?(other than a complete restructuring of society) Will all this land be used for another super cheap crop? (if so you can make a safe bet that the smart money will invest in Monsanto stock, battered by the death of corn it would be bound to resurge once the first transgenic *whatever replaced corn* came onto the market) – will the US consumer base accept a slight hike in prices as we start importing corn, turning a food crop into a cash crop internationally and sucking dry the bread baskets of the world to produce consumer products? Or would the huge increases in food costs caused by the death of subsidies cause such a public outrage that the subsidies would be reintroduced after doing huge damage to agricultural communities and the economy at large? (keeping in mind that at present it seems perfectly acceptable to throw literally trillions of dollars at schemes which sold immaterial products to greedy people for no apparent change in anybody’s economic status – compared to this farm subsidies are pretty piecemeal and do form a foundation to most of US agribusiness)
On increasing yields in the US – do we, right now, absolutely need this, as a society? I’d say this is pretty debateable – one arguement is that increasing yields reduces prices which then drives the need to increase yields so that a given quantity of land will at least maintain revenue – however how do you break out of a cycle like this, and is it necessarily as simple as that? Farmers would need to either act in unison or be incredibly altruistic to achieve anything other than a desire to yield the most possible out of your land – the few who choose to take the moral high ground and produce less will end up out of business or in general financial disarray, while everyone else who produces as much as they can benefits from these martyrs – with the net result that the demand for higher yield stays.
Assuming that you accept that farmers in general are going to want to increase their yields, is it then be wrong for a company to help them achieve these goals? If so how far does the responsibility go? Is the individual consumer who shops at Wal-Mart, or Aldi wrong for attempting to save a buck? Are the countless people country wide who sit in McDonald’s drive throughs to get their egg McMuffin (corn in corn with extra corn) and morning coffee culpable? Are the manufacturers of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers (both chemical and manure based) equally wrong (purely in terms of achieving increased yield, lets ignore the arguements around environmental aspects in this particular instance)? Or is it only wrong to help farmers increase yields if it is done in a way that you personally do not approve of?
Things that can, or should, appeal to consumers?
Cheaper food. Increased yields, decreased inputs – cheaper food. (although this is partly speculation as I dont have any hard facts on this!) – If you want the entire US corn crop to be hand weeded then I’m sure this would do amazing things for employment across the corn belt – it’d also send the price of corn, or any crop, through the roof.
Reduced environmental impact of food production while maintaining prices (cheaper food!) Spraying Bt costs more than growing Bt, both in terms of money, and in terms of environmental impact (assuming you accept that burning of fossil fuels is in general a bad thing – nevermind the potential spray drift damage John Q mentions) Using herbicides other than roundup causes significantly higher environmental damage (in the order of approximately 30%) while being either cost neutral or higher cost (ignoring hand weeding here).
Increased farmer incomes and general wellbeing – while this doesnt directly affect the bulk of consumers (other than those consumers who happen to be farmers, but then I’m guessing they’re already sold on this) I think it is something that people probably should care about – agriculture remains the bedrock on which civilization is built – something that is pretty easy to forget when you are ten steps removed as most people in the US are – increasing the income of the people who keep society afloat should be seen as a great thing. Increasing the wellbeing of farmers in whatever way should also be a goal of society as a whole – whether this is by reducing the amount of pesticide they need to spray in order to achieve a profitable crop (thus improving their own health, the health of the environment, and lining their pockets) – as in the case of Danny who stated he has reduced pesticide use by 80% or by buying them more time with friends and family due to the ease of use of the roundup ready herbicide system.
Ewan, thank you for taking the time to do a very thorough and well-reasoned (and more effective) version of the same points I was trying to make.
Now that you’ve provided a good foundation, I’d like to try to summarize in my own thought model, in case there is anyone else out there whose brain works the way mine does.
1. Subsidies are bad? They keep the price of food down, while maintaining farmer income. Take away the subsidies, and the consumer pays more. But who pays the subsidies? The US Government. And where does the US Government get their money? From the consumers (eventually). So the consumers pay, one way or the other. The difference is, if the farmer raises his price, the processor raises HIS price, and the warehouser raises HIS price, and the grocer raises HIS price, so it could be argued that “we” may end up paying less by having to (indirectly) pay for the subsidy, rather than having that cost built into the price of the crop and marked-up incrementally all along the supply chain.
2. What do consumers really want? To spend less, and get more. That is what motivates them. So things like hand-weeding, while emotionally satisfying, aren’t going to fly when it comes down to “paper or plastic?” time. Similarly, small farms, while they give a nice warm “Norman Rockwell” feeling, add COST that will show up on your grocery receipt. Otherwise, stores like Walmart wouldn’t be driving all of the locally owned shops out of business.
3. Despite what Ewan said, farmers couldn’t care less about YIELD, at least in terms of bushels per acre/hectare. What they REALLY care about is yield in DOLLARS per acre. If they could find a way to get $100,000 for a single corn cob per acre, they would be fine with that.
There are two ways to increase $/acre.
1. Decrease COST/acre.
2. Increase (gross) income per acre.
(1) is why GM crops are still being sold, and why small farms are disappearing. And why no-till becomes more popular every season.
(2) is why a LOT of farmers planted corn last season, expecting to sell it for ethanol. But if corn doesn’t maximize the $/acre, they will “rotate” their crop to soy, or wheat, or cotton, or canola, whatever they THINK will give them the most $/acre. The fact that the rest of us do (or don’t) get fed as a result of this is a secondary concern, at best.
Because farmers who DON’T maximize their $/acre will eventually be out of business. The problem is, this is an inexact “science”. As the oil, ethanol, and corn prices showed last season, crops that look good at planting time may yield a different result at harvest. Input prices should be a little more stable, but the price of Glyphosate, for example, has swung significantly as the Chinese plants went off- and on-line. So while the fate of individual farms and farmers may vary, as a whole they aren’t doing TOO bad these days, and GM crops are helping that.
A different take on this is presented at http://deltafarmpress.com/biofuels/laws-column-0424/
which says in part:
The report also exposes the myth that farmers can’t grow enough corn. “The reality is the pie is getting bigger and more can go for ethanol without taking away corn from food and feed,” says Rick Tolman, the National Corn Growers’ CEO. “It is not a zero-sum game. Agriculture is in the midst of a tremendous technology boom that is increasing productivity with the same or fewer inputs.”
Kate Says:
May 5, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I might also add that the 963 million people worldwide that are undernourished might disagree with you that we have enough food. We produce a lot of food here but the US is also one of the biggest exporters of core crops.
=========================
It has been shown over and over that there is enough food to feed everyone. Poverty is the main reason for hunger. No matter how much food you genetically engineer, grow , water, and spray with pesticides, the poor do not have access to it.
Genetically engineering food does not feed the poor. The millions Monsanto repeatedly claims to invest in their inventions could be so much better spent if feeding the poor were the goal.
Deborah,
I believe that genetic engineering is an essential technology in agriculture. It is not a cure-all but it does significantly improve farmers’ lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jstomanuvzQ
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/farmers.asp?cname=South%20Africa&id=ElizabethJele
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/farmers.asp?cname=Portugal&id=JoseMariaFalcao
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/farmers.asp?cname=Argentina&id=AndresFernandezMadero
Also, check out some of our partner programs that are working to make technology more available to those who can benefit from it.
Water Efficient Maize for Africa
SHARE
Good point on the $/Ac John – although I think that in general $/Ac and Bu/Ac correspond pretty closely.
In terms of subsidies etc being bad – I dont know that the cost model you propose would work as the US doesnt operate on a completely closed system – it’d be interesting to see if the price/Bu would change to an extent that importing corn from the developing world would become more economical than paying more for home grown corn – this has tended to be the case with many non-subsidized items (electronics, cars, other crops, call center jobs… etc) which then ties in to food security
There are perhaps enough calories to feed everyone (now), but I would make 3 points on this:
1. The only reason there is enough calories to sustain the world is because of advances in technology that have increased grain production, especially corn. Is it sustainable though to ship grain from one continent to another? While we will likely always need to do this (absent a huge reduction in population (“your deity of choice” forbid) we need to do more so people in Africa and South Asia can grow their own crops and be self sustainable.
2. Calories do not equal nutrition. We need more nutritious food, not just grain. Technology is part of the solution to bringing better nutrition to the world.
3. The UN estimates we will have to double food production by 2050 just to meet caloric intake. You will need technology, including biotechnology, to do do this. It is not a silver bullet, but is part of the solution.
Not all land is arable and farming marginal land only leads to desertification and the degradation of other resources we will ultimately need to farm in the future. It’s a vicious cycle of destruction of the land that leads to even more destructive attempts to techno-fix the same!
But as far as farming arable land and increasing yields, many studies that have been repeatedly cited, though rarely acknowledged by Monsanto, say organic and other low-input methods are most sustainable and beneficial to hungry people:
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.
*****************
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, vegetables, legumes,etc]…By channeling one-third of the grain produced world-wide to needy people, hunger would cease instantly.
Deborah – do you know where the 2nd paper you link (the pre-report of a soon to be published paper) ended up? The closest I could come to was
http://www.essex.ac.uk/ces/esu/occasionalpapers/SAFE%20FINAL%20-%20Pages1-22.pdf
Which while an interesting read in itself is not a complete document (I was intruiged by the “Annex B: Some Thoughts on GMOs and Organic Agriculture” but as this isnt the full document (and I dont seem to be able to find anything past page 22, which may be poor ability to search on my behalf) which is a shame.
I’m still not sure why Bt and water/nitrogen efficient transgenics cant be considered as part of a sustainable system even when sustainability is taken to its most extreme (ie zero pesticide/herbicide/fertilizer inputs) as there is nothing intrinsic to these technologies which requires all the bells and whistles of modern industrial agriculture (the traits simply need to be in plant lines which are suited to the climate at hand – using hybrids selected for the ability to grow in ind. Ag. situations would obviously be a dumb move)
I would fully agree that organic like practices(with my caveat that I see absolutely no good reason to exclude GM seeds from the mix), and better resource management practices are definitely part of the solution for helping farmers in the developing world, even such simple things as better, more universally available agronomic education would no doubt lead to huge gains in the productivity of some of the poorest farmers (remembering a story in one of Richard Dawkins books where his father had immense trouble trying to explain to local farmers that rather than eating the best seeds of their crop they should plant them (which seems like obvious common sense to anyone who’s taken an even fleeting interest in modern agriculture/genetics but which is one of the historical eureka moments for modern society))
Also there are potentially many changes society at large could make to increase the availability of food in general. If everyone became vegetarian for instance a lot of the problems around future food production would simply go away (at least until the global population became much larger) but this doesnt seem to remotely be likely – meat consumption in China in particular has risen dramatically in the past few decades, but hasnt even yet hit 50% of US consumption rates – can we afford to ignore a trend like this which will put increasing pressure on demands for grain? Will the affluent meat eaters simply stop because the increased price of grain is cutting millions off from affordable food? (not sure how accurate this reflection is, it’s my hunch that a lot of the grain that goes to feeding animals would be pretty worthless to humans in terms of edibility – although that still means that land is tied up growing otherwise worthless grain) – I’d say sadly not.
To paraphrase a professor of mine when discussing population genetics and the current explosion of the human population “if we could persuade everyone to eat algae there would be no food crisis in the forseeable future”
In the meantime however, I believe that every available method in the agronomic arsenal should be utilized to increase food production globally and to initiate sustainable agricultural practices – focusing on only one solution, or only a handful of solutions, out of the many available, would be foolhardy – I dont think anyone should want to roll the dice on the survival of billions either due to ideological restraints(anti GM) or to turn a quick dollar(industrial agriculture or bust).
Deborah quoted:
“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.”
Roundup Ready supports less tilling.
BT and other IR technologies support integrated pest management and less pesticide spraying.
GM technology in the pipeline will address drought resistance, improved nitrogen utilization, and improved management of [other] soil nutrients. Were it not for regulatory restrictions, these traits might well be in production already.
This isn’t an either/or proposition. GM can support and promote sustainability, and also reduce workloads per unit production. But developing these traits costs money, as does regulating them, and Monsanto is, after all, a commercial enterprise.
And yet still, Monsanto supports
Water Efficient Maize for Africa
SHARE
(links for which are in
Kate Says:
May 6, 2009 at 1:12 pm,
since she is apparently better at this blogging technology than I am!)
I see it as the Green Revolution has had short- term successes and unforeseen long-term failures. Of course, one can not disentangle the social systems’ shortcomings either. Consider this NPR article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102893816&ft=1&f=1001
Their comparatively small region, Punjab, grows far more wheat and rice for India than any other region. But now these farmers are running out of groundwater.
They have to buy three times as much fertilizer as they did 30 years ago to grow the same amount of crops. They blitz their crops with pesticides, but insects have become so resistant that they still often destroy large portions of crops.
The state’s agriculture “has become unsustainable and nonprofitable,” according to a recent report by the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology. Some experts say the decline could happen rapidly, over the next decade or so.
When farmers switched from growing a variety of traditional crops to high-yield wheat and rice, they also had to make other changes. There wasn’t enough rainwater to grow thirsty “miracle” seeds, so farmers had to start irrigating with groundwater. They hired drilling companies to dig wells, and they started pumping groundwater onto the fields.
But Sandeep says he has been forced to hire the drilling company again, because the groundwater under his fields has been sinking as much as 3 feet every year.
Government surveys confirm it. In fact, his family and other farmers have had to deepen their wells every few years — from 10 feet to 20 feet to 40 feet, and now to more than 200 feet — because the precious water table keeps dropping below their reach.
“Farmers are committing a kind of suicide,” warns Kalkat, the director of the Punjab State Farmers Commission. “It’s like a suicide, en masse.”
Kalkat offers an unsettling prediction in a nation whose population is growing faster than any other on Earth: If farmers don’t drastically revamp the system of farming, the heartland of India’s agriculture could be barren in 10 to 15 years.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102944731 [part 2]
Farmers In Debt
The groundwater problem has touched off an economic chain reaction. As the farmers dig deeper to find groundwater, they have to install ever more powerful and more expensive pumps to send it gushing up to their fields.
Sandeep says his new pump costs more than $4,000. He and most other farmers have to borrow that kind of cash, but they are already so deep in debt that conventional banks often turn them away.
So Sandeep and his neighbors have turned to “unofficial” lenders — local businessmen who charge at least double the banks’ interest rate. The district agriculture director, Palwinder Singh, says farmers can end up paying a whopping 24 percent.
Farmers In Debt
The groundwater problem has touched off an economic chain reaction. As the farmers dig deeper to find groundwater, they have to install ever more powerful and more expensive pumps to send it gushing up to their fields.
Sandeep says his new pump costs more than $4,000. He and most other farmers have to borrow that kind of cash, but they are already so deep in debt that conventional banks often turn them away.
So Sandeep and his neighbors have turned to “unofficial” lenders — local businessmen who charge at least double the banks’ interest rate. The district agriculture director, Palwinder Singh, says farmers can end up paying a whopping 24 percent.
Another side effect of the groundwater crisis is evident at the edge of the fields — thin straggly rows of wheat and a whitish powder scattered across the soil.
The white substance is salt residue. Drilling deep wells to find fresh water often taps brackish underground pools, and the salty water poisons the crops.
Destroying The Soil
In the village of Chotia Khurd, farmers agree that the Green Revolution used to work miracles for many of them. But now, it’s like financial quicksand.
Studies show that their intensive farming methods, which government policies subsidize, are destroying the soil. The high-yield crops gobble up nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and manganese, making the soil anemic.
The farmers say they must use three times as much fertilizer as they used to, to produce the same amount of crops — yet another drain on their finances.
But the commission’s director, G.S. Kalkat, says Punjab’s farmers are committing ecological and economic “suicide.”
If he is correct, suicide is coming through national policies that reward farmers for the very practices that destroy the environment and trap them in debt.
=========================
This story is repeated over and over in many different places. The ever expanding Gobi Desert, the drought stricken lands of America…Do your seeds come with water, nutrients, and topsoil? What works in one region and society doesn’t necessarily work in another. Anyone intelligent enough to G E plants should have been able to comprehend that concept.
The green revolution wasn’t sustainable and I see the gene revolution requiring the same, if not more, inputs. Along with more financial and ecological risks. During this green revolution, we did not even understand the damage we were doing until it was so pervasive throughout our contaminated bodies and environment that we couldn’t miss it. The damage was insidious and rampant at the same time. Now we have those problems to fix as well as managing to feed ourselves and saving our environment. Much of what we have done is irreversible in our lifetimes–and then some.
I have not seen anything to convince me GM will be any better, that GM is sustainable, and that any of your pipeline dreams are even attainable. I shudder to think of your contaminating heirloom and organic seeds and lands. But at this rate, I believe it will happen. It’s like a virus spreading through a dense population. It knows no bounds.
The GM system still relies on toxic pesticides, heavy fertilizer usage, monocultures; it exists in an unfair trade system and an unpredictably changing climate; and now we have the added bonus of the unkown effects of genetic engineering and contamination.
“Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer…” Ewan, you speak of anti-science, but science should be APPLICABLE to the needs and equilibrium of the system; science need not impose a new order on the world. Entropy would get right to work on such an arrogant presumption. Science, like it’s child, Medicine, should first do no harm. Even if genetic engineering is a valid scientific endeavor theoretically or in some particular applications, we don’t have to apply it to our food source (or else we are ANTI-science) or let it loose to perpetuate itself in our closed environmental system (We might be wise to exercise caution.). It really is foolish madness, IMO. You can’t embrace Science just for the sake of Science. Sound honest science says we don’t even know the extent of the damage Monsanto has done. And I would be willing to bet everything I own that you have done some serious damage. Every action has a reaction. Think of the law of the conservation of matter–I don’t think you can genetically engineer your way around it. You don’t get anything (huge yields) without the cost (huge environmental resources) of something else. It isn’t possible. Monsanto forged ahead into the Commons without any knowledge of how your crops would ultimately affect every living thing from soil microbiology to whole ecosystems. And here in the middle of all this are we, the people.
You don’t truly know how your crops affect human health long-term. There are no conclusive studies you have put forth. So don’t sit on your high-horse talking about feeding the hungry and saving the planet from global warming when you are really cornering the global seed market with nothing but financial interests in mind. “Making some money,” as you are fond of saying on this blog. You try to pressure the South Africans into growing corn for biofuel and yet state you want to help continents become self-sufficient for food. And how you could write an article about farmer suicides in India and include the phrase “the bottom line” is really cold and hitting bottom in my opinion. Your Bt cotton made a bad situation worse from 2002 on in many parts of India. I’m bracing myself for you next explanation as to why Monsanto had nothing to do with it.
I can’t think of any philanthropic reason why Monsanto is investing so much money in an expensive and unproven technology when we already have proven methods of sustaining agriculture, people, their economies and cultures, soils, water resources, biodiversity, etc. We already have enough food to feed everyone and we know what we have to do to equitably distribute it. We could get to work on it right now, instead of in 2010 or 2020, or 2050 or when pigs fly! When your panacea flows from the biotech pipeline. How many will have starved to death by then? Tell that to 963 million hungry people, Kate. Water efficient maize is coming. Nevermind that we already have enough food to feed you if you can come up with the cash! And escape those war zones!
We already have seeds compatible with different regions. Farmers have the knowledge of how to grow them in balance with the environment that they understand. We should ask the hungry what they need and want to improve their lots in life instead of creating multi-vitamin/mineral corn and rice. We could distribute vitamins with a much lower overhead. Do impoverished people actually want and deserve as a basic human right a balanced diet?
Monsanto could use their pull with governments to make real changes in the lives of struggling people and degraded environments. Instead of suing Germany and France to muscle in your seeds and lobbying to prevent labeling in the US, you could work for generative, tangible progress. I can only reason that you are hoping to cash in on the great misfortune of others and the planet with your patented seeds and accompanying pesticides. And you will only make things worse. Then what will we do? Look to you for another solution to the last problem you caused. It reminds me of the Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly. She should have quit while she was ahead…Or had a glass of water and been done with it. You people could really learn something from Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax. You might have read it as a child. Every child should.
I just saw a profound documentary on the Gobi desert. The final clip had a farmer saying that the spreading sand dunes weren’t the scary thing. It was the people who were scary. There was no end to how much they wanted.
Do our seeds come with water, nutrients and topsoil?
No, but water use efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, and the easy transition to no till offered by GM tech (~10 years, coming soon, and right now respectively) are all GM technologies which in a certain respect fulfil these requirements.
Indeed what works in one region and society may not work in another. Hence the need to use the correct germplasm for GE, the need to establish the correct agronomic practices.
Your vision of the ‘gene revolution’ (I like that, havent heard it before, guess I need to read more) as requiring more inputs seems to me questionable, I dont understand why anyone would believe that this has to be the case, it has been established that GE traits used now already reduce inputs (not all the way to zero, but a definite reduction) when applied to industrial agriculture from large to small scale. I fail to see how WUE or NUE traited products, given that this is the only difference, would require anything other than reduced inputs under the same conditions (reduced water for WUE, and reduced fertilizer for NUE) as this is essentially the entire point of these traits. Which hybrid they are put in would then dictate the other needs of the crop – put them in a super high yielding super demanding germplasm and yes, they’ll be just like any other high input crop (only slightly less so in one respect) but put them into germplasms specifically designed for low input environments (such as the germplasms which will no doubt be utilized in projects such as WEMA) and I can think of no logical reason why anyone would believe they would require higher inputs. Not one. Perhaps you can enlighten me on your thinking here without resorting to parables of Dr Suess or other childrens tales? If we can bring into the open the logical framework under whch you base these assumptions then maybe we can get somewhere with regards to better understanding each other.
I’m a little confused by your Yeats quotation, I’m guessing that both sides in this debate would go ahead and lump themselves in as “the best” and the other side as “the worst” although I’d say that equally both sides neither lack conviction nor passion.
Is the beast that slouches towards bethlehem GE or dogmatic distrust of science? Either side could essentially use the poem to their own advantage by inserting the other side as the bad guy.
You know as well as anyone that “the bottom line” isnt being used in a business sense in that title, its just another way of saying “the truth” “the facts” or whatnot. You continue to propagate the myth that Bt cotton “made a bad situation worse” based entirely on the popular press and a handful of testimonials while rather unscientifically ignoring the bigger picture – is there a reason other than dogmatic distrust of GE technology that the average increase in farmer income, and average decrease in type I pesticide useage are either ignored or discounted? Why focus on the outliers when the population as a whole has benefited? As Karl Haro Von Mogel succinctly pointed out – why arent you railing against the cultural pressures forcing poor farmers to take out loans for extravagant marriages (pointless loans with no chance of ever making money, as compared to the calculated risk of loans on crops which in general will pay off)
There is no single approach that will work – hopefully organizations built to do exactly as you propose are doing as you propose, finding out what is needed, educating farmers (perhaps in the ways that Michelle India detailed, although I guess that is all part of the big corporate conspiracy), Monsanto is a biotech seed company, as such it makes sense that we approach the problem from our own sphere of expertise (biotech and breeding) and add what we can bring to what everyone else can bring.
While you appear to view the green revolution as a failure – it is responsible for saving hundreds of millions from starvation – from a purely environmental stance it would probably have been better that starvation be allowed to run rampant, but I cant see anyone with an ounce of human emotion seeing this as the preferred pathway.
We’re investing in this technology because we firmly believe that it is a fundamentally important part of the solution, and because it is within our area of expertise. Monsanto does use our pull with governments to make real changes in the lives of struggling people and degraded environments (improved farmer incomes in india, reduced pesticide useage in China resulting in fewer illnesses/deaths for farmers, reduced useage of the harshest pesticides on bt crops, reduced useage of the more toxic herbicides, WEMA (which isnt just biotech, but also breeding, which I’m assuming is not anathema to anti-GM folks) – if our regulatory folk didnt do the amazing job they do in getting our products accepted globally then none of these benefits would have been realized)
“How many will have starved to death by then?”
Who knows? Can this number be fairly put at Monsanto’s feet? If the rest of the world drags its feet and expects biotech to provide the only solution then I’d argue that every death can be squarely placed at the feet of an uncaring, unthinking world which has placed too much trust in a single solution to a complex problem which will never be solved by a single approach – a better (and equally unanswerable)question may be how many people will starve if we do not invest in this kind of technology? Are you willing to write off hundreds of millions of future lives because of your admittedly unscientific dislike of the technology? (“Sound honest science says we don’t even know the extent of the damage Monsanto has done. And I would be willing to bet everything I own that you have done some serious damage.”)
From your last statement I think that we at least do agree on some aspects (shocking as that may sound) of the root problems – there is no end to how much people want. My feeling is that to overcome this production needs to be upped to maintain standards of living while society itself modifies towards a more sustainable mode of living – the alternative is to let production stand where it is and allow the system to self rectify in catastrophic manner – a global population crash – which I’d also guess we both would agree would be a terrible thing.
Deborah said:
“You don’t truly know how your crops affect human health long-term. There are no conclusive studies you have put forth.”
and then,
“We already have enough food to feed everyone and we know what we have to do to equitably distribute it. We could get to work on it right now, instead of in 2010 or 2020, or 2050 or when pigs fly! When your panacea flows from the biotech pipeline.”
and also
“We should ask the hungry what they need and want to improve their lots in life instead of creating multi-vitamin/mineral corn and rice. We could distribute vitamins with a much lower overhead. Do impoverished people actually want and deserve as a basic human right a balanced diet?”
Deborah, I have to admit I’ve lost track of what you are asking for. If you want more and better testing and documentation, you cannot then berate Monsanto for having a lengthy pipeline.
As for asking the hungry what they need and want, I think most of us have a good idea, but sure, ask away. Now, come up with a legal way to deliver that into sovereign nations that DO NOT WANT OUR HELP. In fact, many of these nations would rather see their subjects DIE than let them see any of the successes of the outside world. Seeds or vitamins, it doesn’t matter. Or are you suggesting we declare war and send in armed forces to deliver whatever aid the hungry ask for?
As for “We already have enough food to feed everyone and we know what we have to do to equitably distribute it.” Yes, but can this be done in a sustainable way? Or are you just transferring the burden from agriculture to transportation and storage?
Not to mention a side effect that has already been alluded to, but not acknowledged: are you going to be the one to tell everyone on the planet they have to give up eating meat? Are you even willing to tell YOUR FRIENDS this? Because if we continue using grain to feed meat animals, I’m not sure how much longer your calculation of “enough food to feed everyone” holds. And the “generic distribution of food to all” you are suggesting sounds very much like “Soylent”. (My apologies for the unavoidable but unintended “Soylent Green is people” connection.)
I don’t think the Green Revolution was a complete failure; my point is that the increase in yield places a heavy demand on the environment–hence my conservation of matter reference. My point is that many of the affects of increased yield, fertilizer, pesticide, and land usage has had detrimental effects on the resources (and ourselves) we depend on as long as we plan on eating. You don’t get something for nothing, ever!
I’ll wait for your new India thread to comment there.
I’m not sure how toxic roundup is, what are we finding out, what more will we find in the future?
Many sources state we are still experiencing ever increasing pesticide usage worldwide. ON a different thread or perhaps this one, I cited how Bt cotton farmers still spray refuges and their Bt crop with other insecticides. Secondary pests are becoming a bigger problem. I see that the frequency of spraying is increasing. And roundup spray is increasing, along with other herbicides.
As for China, Ewan, you say ” reduced pesticide useage in China resulting in fewer illnesses/deaths for farmers..”
I have read in many places, but will cite one for now:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July06/Bt.cotton.China.ssl.html
July 25, 2006
Seven-year glitch: Cornell warns that Chinese GM cotton farmers are losing money due to ‘secondary’ pests
Although Chinese cotton growers were among the first farmers worldwide to plant genetically modified (GM) cotton to resist bollworms, the substantial profits they have reaped for several years by saving on pesticides have now been eroded.
The reason, as reported by Cornell University researchers at the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting in Long Beach, Calif., July 25, is that other pests are now attacking the GM cotton.
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.
“These results should send a very strong signal to researchers and governments that they need to come up with remedial actions for the Bt-cotton farmers. Otherwise, these farmers will stop using Bt cotton, and that would be very unfortunate,” said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, the H.E. Babcock Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell, and the 2001 Food Prize laureate. Bt cotton, he said, can help reduce poverty and undernourishment problems in developing countries if properly used.
The study — the first to look at the longer-term economic impact of Bt cotton — found that by year three, farmers in the survey who had planted Bt cotton cut pesticide use by more than 70 percent and had earnings 36 percent higher than farmers planting conventional cotton. By 2004, however, they had to spray just as much as conventional farmers, which resulted in a net average income of 8 percent less than conventional cotton farmers because Bt seed is triple the cost of conventional seed.
In addition to Pinstrup-Andersen, the study was conducted by Shenghui Wang, Cornell Ph.D. ’06 and now an economist at the World Bank, and Cornell professor David R. Just. They stress that secondary pest problems could become a major threat in countries where Bt cotton has been widely planted.
This study was jointly conducted by the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Chinese Academy of Science and Cornell.
*********************
AS for the Dr. Seuss reference, you’d have to read the book to get it. Wiki doesn’t really do it justice.
John, most of my friends understand they need to eat less meat than their parents did. It’s an ethical choice each person will have to make for him or her self. I’m not telling anyone what they have to do. Eventually, the environment may make the hard choices for us…things can not stay the same. This Center can not hold.
John says:
Deborah, I have to admit I’ve lost track of what you are asking for. If you want more and better testing and documentation, you cannot then berate Monsanto for having a lengthy pipeline:
=============
I want your safety studies published on line for open scientific peer-review.
Deborah,
* For the Record — Science
* Safety summaries
* Biotech-related Technical Publications
* Roundup/Glyphosate Background Materials
* MSDS/Labels
* Weed resistance
* DNA detection
* Monsanto Product Stewardship
All here (Technical & Safety Info), on the web – public.
I’ve posted a link to the Technical and Safety page before.
Deborah -
even if we assume a worst case scenario for Bt cotton and China as stated in your post (of lets say 4-7 years of reduced pesticide use and increased incomes) that still equals 4-7 years of reduced pesticide use and increased incomes. That still equals 4-7 years of reduced fatalities due to pesticide toxicity. If the Bt crop is no longer profitable to the farmers they can simply switch back to the cheaper seeds.
And thats assuming the worst case scenario.
It is interesting to note the following segment:-
“These results should send a very strong signal to researchers and governments that they need to come up with remedial actions for the Bt-cotton farmers. Otherwise, these farmers will stop using Bt cotton, and that would be very unfortunate,” said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, the H.E. Babcock Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell, and the 2001 Food Prize laureate. Bt cotton, he said, can help reduce poverty and undernourishment problems in developing countries if properly used.
And to note that Monsanto has a horrible market share in China with the Bt cotton market being predominantly “home grown” (pun intended?) and relatively uncontrolled – one has to wonder if this inefficiency of the system would have still been in place if the much touted control over farmers Monsanto is alleged to wield were actually true.
Also
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21623/Bt_Cotton_Incecticide_Use_September_2006.pdf
published at around the same time appears to paint a different story of pesticide useage across China, so clearly there is some question around how widespread any issues that occur are.
Yes, Kate, you had published it. Is there a place on this website for people to comment? That is actually what I have asked for, a back and forth discussion. Is there a place where people can ask questions of Monsanto regarding the studies?
Deborah:
I clicked through on several of Kate’s links, and the links on those pages, and most reference articles from peer-reviewed journals.
Frankly, and this is NOT a Monsanto opinion, but I don’t think the majority of the people are qualified to adequately REVIEW the data behind these studies. I know I am not. Perhaps you are, but I feel exposing the details to the general public will just result in MORE confusion, rather than less.
As for a place for a back and forth discussion, I’m pretty sure this has been linked to you (or at least someone more “your side” than “ours”), but each page here has a “Topic Suggestions” link, which points to
http://blog.monsantoblog.com/monsanto-according-to-monsanto/suggestion-box/
My understanding is requests of this nature are more likely to get acted upon if they are submitted there.
But I feel obligated to make the same request to you. Can you provide us with “peer reviewed” data, and a place to have back and forth discussion and questions about YOUR data? And I’d rather they were serious studies and not anecdotal, if you don’t mind.
John, I’m not saying I have any data. Monsanto is the one who needs to prove their product is safe and says they have done. So as a consumer, I am asking for that proof. Several times the PR people here have said we must be scientific in our approach to GM foods and not hysterical or anti-science, so let’s go for it. Any independent studies out there will most likely come up in the conversation, or Monsanto could list them as well, as they are on some of the links from Kate. Their findings and criticisms could be reviewed publicly as well. It’s only fair.
How can you say you feel that more information will only confuse the public? Information is what we need more of to make an informed decision. Without it, we are only speculating or assuming. I trust that people have the wherewithal to sort things out their confusion for themselves. How can we be objective without data and discussion?
If Monsanto is so confident in their safety data, what do they have to worry about? They have all of their scientists their to deal with any questions and back up their positions.
I did make the request some time ago to the suggestions blog when you let me know about it.
Deborah said:
“How can you say you feel that more information will only confuse the public? Information is what we need more of to make an informed decision. Without it, we are only speculating or assuming. I trust that people have the wherewithal to sort things out their confusion for themselves. How can we be objective without data and discussion?”
Deborah, do you want information, or (raw) data? You use the two term interchangeably, but I do not think they are interchangeable.
Actually, what I SAID was: “I don’t think the majority of the people are qualified to adequately REVIEW the data behind these studies. I know I am not.”
So, perhaps YOU can tell us what sample size you need to get a 1% margin of error with a 95% confidence interval, but I dare say the average reader cannot. That is where the raw data comes in.
The distinction I am trying to make is the INFORMATION is in how that DATA is interpreted by the people who collected the data, and I guess their detractors, too. This interpretation is also a science, but after the data has been digested into information, I think the general public has a better (but not assured) chance of understanding it.
As an example of this, look above in this tread for
John Q Says:
May 5, 2009 at 1:34 pm
What Christa gave us was data. What I gave us was information. It is VERY easy to misinform people with data, by allowing the people to draw erroneous conclusions, like Monsanto is using 84% of the water on the island.
You argue for informed decisions. People in governmental and NGO agencies spend their LIVES learning and applying how to make these informed decisions. And they have decided, rightly or wrongly, that GMO’s are worth the risk. I think it is extreme hubris to believe that my decision, with my limited training, would be somehow better than theirs. Or are you advocating anarchy along with informed decisions?
Again, I have to ask, would you subject automobiles to the same level of scrutiny? Or do you take the various governmental agencies word for their interpretation of the data derived from various research studies?
For example, would you put a 6 month old in a rear-facing carseat in the front seat of a car with airbags, just because you hadn’t seen the data on the reaction velocity of the explosives used in airbags?
What about helmets for motorcycle riders? There have been LOTS of studies that show that not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcyle is VERY dangerous, WAY more dangerous that you imply GM crops could be, and yet people are still allowed to ride in most jurisdictions without them.
I know some of these examples may appear to contradict some of my positions, I’m just trying to determine where on the “risk scale” you fall. If you want more GM food testing but don’t support requiring motorcycle helmets, I have to admit I find that hypocritical. On the other hand, if you stray too far the other direction, you risk turning the state into a nanny, where EVERYTHING is regulated, because life is, after all, dangerous.
I would like to see Monsanto’s safety studies, data and all, publicly reviewed. The whole ball of wax.
John, you say that, “People in governmental and NGO agencies spend their LIVES learning and applying how to make these informed decisions. And they have decided, rightly or wrongly, that GMO’s are worth the risk.” What percentage of people does that represent? And people have been known to make mistakes and to do wrong for gain. Certainly many people in NGO’s and at least some in the FDA/EPA have decided against gmo’s. And so have many individual citizens, you may know us as consumers.
Once again, the revolving door between Biotech and Government comes to mind; who decided? People pushing through that door decided.
I don’t find any of your other examples of choices the least bit relevant to the non-choice of eating 3 meals a day, 7 days a week for the rest of my life.
Is asking for information with the risk of dissenting opinion anarchy? Or democracy? I think it’s a whole lot easier to confuse people with a LACK of information. And to control them as well.
Could that be Monsanto’s intention?
I do believe you hit the nail on the head when you said that, “The distinction I am trying to make is the INFORMATION is in how that DATA is interpreted by the people who collected the data, and I guess their detractors, too.” Who collects and interprets the data now? Who pays for that data and interpretation? Who is interpreting the data for us? I would like to see a much wider range of data collection and interpretation. Since when is advocating for independent analysis of data considered anarchy?
“Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”
Deborah, you said:
“Certainly many people in NGO’s and at least some in the FDA/EPA have decided against gmo’s.”
Yes, certainly they have. MY question is, have they decided based on EVIDENCE, or personal conviction? Because I just don’t see the evidence to support their decision, so I am suspicious they decided on personal conviction, and then started collecting (only) data to support their position, rather than taking an objective approach without prior bias.
“And people have been known to make mistakes and to do wrong for gain.”
Exactly. So, are “you” (as in is some random person) more or less prone to making mistakes than trained investigators? And how does having more studies and more regulatory agencies make this better?
“the non-choice of eating 3 meals a day, 7 days a week for the rest of my life.”
Remember those mistake-making people from the previous paragraph? They grow, store, and transport your food. The only way around it is to grow your own food, and then still you have to trust the seed-providers. There’s no way around it.
“Who collects and interprets the data now? Who pays for that data and interpretation? Who is interpreting the data for us? I would like to see a much wider range of data collection and interpretation. Since when is advocating for independent analysis of data considered anarchy?”
As far as I know, all of Monsanto’s studies are published in peer-reviewed journals, which is enough to satisfy me. And the data behind those studies is available to the “peers”, who are in the best position to judge it.
The impression I have of most of Monsanto’s detractors is they DON’T publish peer-reviewed studies, and they are NOT objective and unbiased. They publish misleading, biased interpretations that ignore data which don’t support their pre-determined agenda. The way I read Dr. Dan in the other discussion, this is his contention, also. But I don’t want to put words in his mouth.
You ask for independent analysis. I’d add to that unbiased and objective. Because as I showed above, it is very easy to present data in a way that leads people to come to the wrong conclusion.
I also ask for unbiased and objective studies and analysis. That is exactly what I want.
To me, you could easily turn any of the statements you made above right back around on Monsanto. Monsanto also refutes all work that does not support their position. That is the problem.
What I would like to see is those conflicting studies done publicly in conjuction with independent scientists-including those who oppose gmo’s-with agreed upon methodology, etc, in public view, under governmental or some other agreed upon oversight. That way we can see an objective, unbiased conclusion. It is a sound scientific principle to repeat studies until you have a consistent outcome.
One other point you made interests me as well. Do you mean to say that all of Monsanto’s safety studies done prior to deregulation of crops are published in peer-reviewed journals? If so, would you please direct me to that link?
Deborah said:
“Monsanto also refutes all work that does not support their position. That is the problem.”
No, that is the SOLUTION you are asking for. Refuting work is done by collecting ALL data, and then seeing where it takes us. That is the approach that Monsanto takes. And others can try to take ALL of that data and refute Monsanto’s position.
What (in MY opinion) Monsanto’s CRITICS do (in many but not all cases) is only take the data that SUPPORTS their position, and IGNORE any data that contradicts their position.
Taking that approach, I could easily “prove” that all women in the US are over 6 feet tall and have blue eyes, because those that aren’t are statistical anomolies that don’t matter. And my “proof” is just as meaningful as anyone else’s who takes this approach.
Deborah said:
“Do you mean to say that all of Monsanto’s safety studies done prior to deregulation of crops are published in peer-reviewed journals?”
I do not, have not, and will in all likelihood never speak for Monsanto. But my understanding, from the outside, is that if Monsanto conducts a study as part of an investigation for some government “process”, ALL of that data had to be included in the study documentation provided to the government. PRESUMABLY the government has that data peer-reviewed, a point to which I will get back shortly. And any studies which Monsanto DOES publicly publish SHOULD be in peer-reviewed journals, postings on the various Monsanto website notwithstanding.
This is NOT a practice I have observed the various detractors of Monsanto following. “They” make accusations and publish NO data behind them, peer reviewed or not. THAT is not science, nor is it a discussion, or even a debate.
Back to my deferred point. I do not, have not, and will in all likelihood never speak for the US government, either. But some will argue the US government actually DOESN’T review, peer or otherwise, Monsanto (or anyone else’s) data. I can nether speak for or against this. But if one doesn’t trust this activity, why then call for ANOTHER agency to certify and label food as “GM” (or non-GM). In my viewpoint, adding another layer CAN’T make the problem (if it exists) better, it can only make it worse.
John Q Says:
June 1, 2009 at 9:43 am
What (in MY opinion) Monsanto’s CRITICS do (in many but not all cases) is only take the data that SUPPORTS their position, and IGNORE any data that contradicts their position.
Taking that approach, I could easily “prove” that all women in the US are over 6 feet tall and have blue eyes, because those that aren’t are statistical anomolies that don’t matter. And my “proof” is just as meaningful as anyone else’s who takes this approach.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Look, this is clearly not what I am advocating. I’m not sure why you keep saying this sort of thing. Here is what I have asked for over and over. Some examples from this thread alone. I think you are purposefully ignoring this fact:
Deborah Rubin Says:
May 30, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I also ask for unbiased and objective studies and analysis. That is exactly what I want
Deborah Rubin Says:
May 21, 2009 at 10:11 am
I would like to see Monsanto’s safety studies, data and all, publicly reviewed. The whole ball of wax.
Deborah Rubin Says:
May 15, 2009 at 8:11 am
John, I’m not saying I have any data. Monsanto is the one who needs to prove their product is safe and says they have done. So as a consumer, I am asking for that proof. Several times the PR people here have said we must be scientific in our approach to GM foods and not hysterical or anti-science, so let’s go for it. Any independent studies out there will most likely come up in the conversation, or Monsanto could list them as well, as they are on some of the links from Kate. Their findings and criticisms could be reviewed publicly as well. It’s only fair…..
******************************
The problem is so much directly contradictory information and a lack of studies. I would like public peer review. You go on to say, “I do not, have not, and will in all likelihood never speak for Monsanto. But my understanding, from the outside, is that if Monsanto conducts a study as part of an investigation for some government “process”, ALL of that data had to be included in the study documentation provided to the government. PRESUMABLY the government has that data peer-reviewed, a point to which I will get back shortly.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I do not believe this is the case, but would be glad for Monsanto to set the Record Straight. I hope the information is peer-reviewed by independent scientists before a crop is released, but do not believe this is part of the deregulatory process or mandatory.
Deborah, sorry, I didn’t mean to make it appear by juxtaposition of the conversation points that I was accusing YOU of data misrepresentation. I was just trying to point out why Monsanto (and every other corporation doing research studies) is reluctant to release raw data. Dr. Dan, in the “How Safe is Your Food?” thread, which is at
http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/05/19/food-safety-gm-foods/ (original post and also discussion), did a better job than I have of this.
I also have no specifics as to the approval process (in ANY jurisdiction) of GM crops, but I DO know that testing IS done, and documented. I’m pretty sure this IS part of the regulatory process and also mandatory. I changed your deregulatory to regulatory because rest assured, it IS still highly regulated, even after a specific technology has been approved for commercial release.
Dr. Dan alludes to this also in “How Safe is Your Food?”
Perhaps we can implore Dr. Dan to give us more details on the approval process itself, like timelines and data that must be collected and submitted. Likely he can point us to any published studies of Monsanto data as well. Would you like to make that “Topic Suggestion”, or shall I?