The Bad Guys' Plan to Feed the Hungry

Let's corporatize starving children (4.00 / 3)

and make profits off of their situation.  Good idea.  I think Bill Gates is actually pushing for something similar to another Green Revolution in Africa, which is scary because they say he has more influence there than most governments, where he does his work.

You should really post more about this on the Great Orange Satan (if you haven't already, in all of your wisdom).

Which Senators do we call about this?

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

---

by: rossl @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 00:18:17 AM CDT

Right now? call all of 'em (4.00 / 3)

start with your own 2 from your state + John Kerry. Kerry needs to hear a LOT about this. If you don't mind doing a few more, add Harkin & Durbin to your email/call list.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 00:49:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

btw, these guys are totally (4.00 / 3)

in lockstep w/ the Gates Foundation.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 00:50:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

one way of looking at this (4.00 / 4)

is that in poverty-stricken areas, food availability drives population. Thus an ideal food production model would involve crops that have evolved to suit the climate, and that includes variations in climate; crops that will produce more or less similarly over time within climactic variations.

To be fair, it's a big complicated subject, and availability of contraception and education of women are also heavily critical in population growth models, not to mention issues having to do with health care. Population growth is sort of a taboo subject; we are supposed to want to produce endless food for the hungry but not address the outcomes of only introducing endless food. It's a real political and environmental hot potato.

Monsanto's angle is always about increasing production, but their products have a bad history of poor planning and crashing and burning. What happens when you bring in high-maintenance, high-yield crops and they eventually fail in a bad drought? You've contributed to destabilizing a human population, and hence increased deaths due to famine. Bottom line: helping out third and fourth world countries is most effective when all the issues above are addressed, and even if Monsanto's crops really were as effective in increasing yields under optimal conditions as they say they are (which is not at all clearly true), they would still be making things worse. As it is, the only thing they are clearly making is money.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 00:54:36 AM CDT

Monsanto and S.384 (3.00 / 3)

The Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act does not direct funding to Monsanto and we have made no request for it to do so.

I agree with your suggestion, at the end of your post, that yield is not the solution to EVERY problem in Africa.  But giving African farmers access to proven technology - technology that increases yield and reduces insecticide and herbicide use -- will help.

---

by: JohnAtMonsanto @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 14:20:06 PM CDT

I've updated the post (4.00 / 6)

because you're right - it's disingenuous to blame it on Monsanto. The Gates Foundation, yes - Monsanto, no. Although Monsanto will profit from increased market penetration of GMO or Hybrid seeds in Africa, will it not?

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 16:07:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what makes a species successful (4.00 / 5)

indeed, what has made humans so successful - is open-ended genetic diversity, diversity with the understanding that we cannot have sufficient foreknowledge to know what genomes might turn out to be critical for the survival of the species.

As I have never seen the slightest suggestion that Monsanto is interested in promoting or preserving genetic diversity according to these guidelines, I find it impossible to believe that your goals and products are likely to promote the long-term survival of any plant crop species.

Also, how does it reduce insecticide usage to breed the poisons into the plant? How does it reduce herbicide usage to sell patented seed that is resistant to an herbicide you sell?  

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 18:35:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can understand the idea (4.00 / 4)

that Bt cotton reduces insecticide use in terms of spraying additional insecticides on the plants. Bt is approved for use on organics so I'm not necessarily opposed to Bt itself, although having the plant produce it can lead to the evolution of superbugs - making the decrease in use of non-organic insecticides a very shortlived one if that were to occur. Farmers are supposed sacrifice a small section of their crops by planting non-GM cotton to slow down the evolution of any such superbugs but it seems like a prisoners dilemma sort of problem - everyone cheats and hopes that all of the other farmers DON'T cheat.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 19:53:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

very well put (4.00 / 4)

the prisoners' dilemma bit.

I am absolutely against the idea of intentionally incorporating toxic material into plant genomes, period. Once you start doing that, you sign off your option for controlling it. Insects are an important part of the ecosystem (and a much more useful one in a lot of ways than humans).

The end result of overuse of Bt will be to lose a lot of neat and useful insect species and wind up with the insect equivalent of a lot of grackles. And I like grackles...I just don't want to ONLY have grackles.

Anyway, just planting a small bit of crop without the Bt GM stuff and most of it with Bt GM cotton is like trying to win the lottery by buying a few tickets from games with a lot of prize money left, and lots of tickets from games without much prize money left. The numbers make it pretty clear as to where things are going to head.

A lot of the problem here (as seen above) is based on the assumption that hands-on farming is bad farming. In reality, the more time you spend out there looking at things, the better you know what's going on. If you have to plant 40 acres to grow enough food for your family to starve on, that's not a technology problem, that's a soil/water management problem, or a climate problem. I agree with Brad that no family should be reduced to spending eighty hours a week weeding, but they are so much more complicated than that, land deterioration problems, and they are all tied in to overuse of land and bad management and overstress of the land from human overpopulation. Monsanto is not going to fix any of this with their fancy seed. It just ain't gonna happen. If it wasn't for the possibility of these artificial genomes messing up perfectly good crop species one way or the other, I'd say their GM stuff wasn't really that important one way or the other, aside from the human pain they cause by disrupting sustainable subsistence agriculture with their pricey little experiments. Not that this latter isn't enough reason to look poorly on them.  

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 20:31:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bt resistance (0.00 / 0)

There is no evidence of the effectiveness of Bt being reduced in the field. Reistance is a reality however and a risk that must be constantly managed. With Bt crops it is done through refugia and soon with the use of multiple proteins.

Managing pests with Bt sprays is often difficult even for experienced, full-time farmers. It can be very challenging for part-time farmers (which is increasingly the case in developing countries where farms have been divided among offspring and a single farm cannot support a family.

Challenge with Bt sprays include:
1. It washes off quickly and easily. Unforseen rains negate efforts to apply Bt.
2. Bt generally works only on certain instars (stages) of larvae. Identifying the right time to spray Bt takes some expertises, and in many developing countries, the expertise is not on hand to advise the farmer.  

---

by: Brad @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 14:36:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bad Guys? (1.00 / 1)

Jill, I understand that you are opposed to agricultural technology. However,characterizing those who drafted and supported this bill is disi as "Bad Guys" is both disingenuous and frankly, rather juvenile.  Anyone who doesn't agree with your view of agriculture are bad guys?  

Further, Monsanto was not involved in the drafting of this bill, and while Monsanto shares the belief with the bill's authors that technology can help lift people from poverty, we would not benefit directly from the passage of this bill.

Given the recent fiasco with failed attempts to portray HR 875 as a Monsanto-sponsored bill I'm surprised at your involvement in the attempt to mis-portray S 384 as a Monsanto bill as well.

Unlike you, I have spent a lot of time in South Asia and developing countries.  I did my graduate research examining problems with pesticide use in India and I have worked with local NGOs in Nepal to improve nutrition through livestock production. My wife is Nepali and has extended family that still live there.  I can tell you first-hand that people in South Asia could benefit greatly from appropriate agricultural technology. What is "appropriate" will vary significantly from area to area, village to village,  and farmer to farmer. It would be a gross injustice to suggest that all farmers would benefit from pesticides, hybrid seed and biotechnology. It is an equally egregious injustice to suggest that none could benefit from these technologies.

Indian cotton farmers have benefited greatly from Bt technology. Their use of highly toxic insecticides such as methyl parathion (which I personally would agree is an inappropriate technology for many parts of the developing world) have decreased significantly and yields have increased dramatically. The reports that Bt cotton has caused an increase in farmer suicides is a rumor that has been spread by anti-biotech activists and largely debunked by recent research. See:
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/I... http://www.igidr.ac.in/suicide...

I do agree wholeheartedly with you on one point however. Agricultural technology alone will not lift feed the world or lift people from poverty. Numeracy and literacy projects, women's rights, Grameen type micro-lending projects and a whole host of other strategies and initiatives are needed - desperately in many cases. All them however, including agricultural technology, are interrelated. For instance, in many parts of the world girls and women spend a large portion of their time weeding fields. If they don't, crop yields suffer - a very bad thing for folks at or below the poverty line. Build all the schools you want, but you won't get girls in the classroom if they have to weed fields 12 hours a day to feed their families. In such situations herbicides and GMOs could be part of the strategy to educate women - which leads to whole chain of events that will help improve people's lives.

In closing, I will leave you with the words of that famous "Bad Guy" Norman Borlaug, a staunch supporter of agricultural technology who I have heard described as saving more lives than any human being in the history of mankind:

"some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things".

Brad Mitchell
Monsanto

---

by: Brad @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 15:08:33 PM CDT

I wasn't the one who branded this one (4.00 / 5)

as the Monsanto bill. The Gates Foundation is behind it, the Chicago Council, Bread for the World (funded by Gates), and Senator Lugar - who needs no encouraging to totally embrace a host of technologies I find disgusting. THAT SAID - Monsanto will profit handsomely from it, as will Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, etc. But people understand "Monsanto" and what it represents so unfortunately, it does serve as a convenient shorthand to describe who will profit from the bill. And, sadly, after 875 was wrongly labeled "the Monsanto bill," that label is now an easy way to get attention.

Monsanto does not deserve to be the sole target of criticism. However, other biotech companies do not seem to be as eager as Monsanto to 1) send lawyers after sustainable food activists (to my knowledge) or 2) after engaging in dirty tactics, then try to cover it up with good PR campaigns.

The Borlaug quote is fair criticism. I live a pretty cushy life right now, although I have no salary and no income, unless my unemployment comes through following an appeal. But I've seen poverty in China and Egypt so I have some inkling of what you & Borlaug are describing. I am certainly NOT suggesting that we do nothing to help Africa - including help them improve their farming techniques. SOMETHING needs to happen. I'm concerned about what it will be and whether it will lead to an epidemic of suicides as it has in India.

I attended BIO 2008 last year. What I took away from it was that MOST PEOPLE who were there were good people. There were a few assholes sprinkled around, but the majority believed they were helping the world. Some of the folks from other countries seemed to feel very patriotic about their ability to keep up with the west by achieving GMO technology. The Americans and others from developed nations seemed happy and proud to help the developing world. And it really gave me pause - I thought "Maybe they are right? Maybe they are helping?" And I had to think about it for a few days to really figure out what I thought about GMOs and why. And even though I do NOT believe GMOs (in any of their current applications) are a good idea, I still believe that the majority of the people in the biotech industry DO mean well.

I'll read your report. I believe I've already downloaded it before and it was one of the next items on my reading list.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 16:05:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

one more thought (4.00 / 5)

about farmer suicides & Bt cotton. It appears to me that 1) the farmer suicides are not all cotton farmers and 2) Bt cotton was not in India when the suicides began. From the limited amount I've read so far, it seems that Bt cotton is adding fuel to a fire that was already started. But it's certainly NOT the cause. And no seeds or agricultural technology are the sole causes because trade liberalization and the lack of affordable credit are also to blame.

However - some of the blame (not all) goes to the hybrid seeds introduced in the 1990's that are designed to be used with pesticides & fertilizer. In that case, Monsanto is still culpable (and so are others, like Cargill, although I believe Monsanto then bought Cargill's seed division).

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 16:25:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

2 points (1.00 / 1)

First, I don't see how Monsanto will "profit handsomely" from the passage of this bill. You have offered no evidence or hypothesis to support this statement. The best I can see is that research and support in Africa will lead to a greater appreciation for the technology, which will then lead to greater acceptance of our seed products. This seems a fairly reasonable path forward however. I am open to other ideas.

Second, I do not agree with your statement that hybrids, by design, need more fertilizer and pesticides. Some of course may. However a very prevalent trait bred into hybrids is disease resistance - hardly a recipe for more pesticides. By nature (literally) plants need more nutrients to produce more yield, so it is reasonable to assume some association between higher yields and more nutrient use. Monsanto by the way, is working to make plants more efficient in their nitrogen use.

My research in India was in '91. Both hybrids and farmer suicide had been prevalent long before my arrival.

Debt was the main factor in suicides. Many factors contributed to this - dowries, high interest rates, bifurcation of land, etc. Inappropriate technology was a contributer I saw first hand as I stated in the previous post.  Even then, with the exception of the factor of highly toxic pesticides being on hand, the technology itself was not a singular factor in suicides. What I saw more frequently in agriculture was that the technology did not have the Extension support it needed for farmers to benefit from it. Farmers could have benefited from pesticides (some, not all), but they didn't know how to use them.

Where I was, cashew growers (a perrenial crop) suffered more from inappropriate technology than rice growers (mainly hybrid). Rice growers had more technical assistance from the government and benefited more from their pesticide use.

Which sustainable food activists did Monsanto send lawyers after? Which dirty tactics?

---

by: Brad @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 17:43:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two More Thoughts (2.00 / 3)

You may not have been the first to label this a "Monsanto Bill" but you were very quick to quote those who did. I do however, greatly and sincerely appreciate your clarification.

Secondly, on the Jim Goodman qote on feeding animals and soft drink companies:
1. Meat is nutritious. By no means is it a sole source of nutrition, but it is nutrious and people get significant sustenance from it.
2. US corn is a critical component of food aid.  

---

by: Brad @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 17:52:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"meat is nutritious" (4.00 / 6)

is a gross oversimplification. Meat from animals raised on an improper diet that leads to an excessively high fat content in the flesh is dangerous to human health when consumed in substantial quantities. And I'm sure you've heard about the results of overuse of antibiotics and more virulent forms of E. coli in cattle guts when their internal pH is disturbed by an improper - i.e., corn-fed - diet.

"US corn is a critical component of food aid" leaves out so many issues that your statement simply takes my breath away. We have a corn glut due to artificial price manipulation and our corn farmers are just barely scraping by in many cases. Shipping corn to other countries makes much less sense than their growing their own food, and what's critical there (among other issues) is the people there managing their own water resources properly, along with soil-building and erosion control. What is Monsanto doing about that?

Or, what is Monsanto doing about the USA's tendencies to take whatever valuable natural resources they can get from other countries, leaving those people with that much less to work with as to developing them themselves? Money in the bank, all those unmined minerals. Is Monsanto concerned about keeping that money in the banks of those underdeveloped countries? Doing the good work protecting the populace from rapacious commercial interests?


"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 19:34:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great comment (4.00 / 5)

I regret that I have but one 4 to give for your comment.

I wish I knew half what the flock of them know
Of where all the berries and other things grow,
Cranberries in bogs and raspberries on top
Of the boulder-strewn mountain, and when they will crop.
--"Blueberries" by Robert Frost

---

by: wide eyed lib @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 22:10:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks (0.00 / 0)

I do get a tad irritated when the Great White Hope gets too over the top about this stuff. "We gonna save da po' peoples from demselves; they too damned dumb to figgah this shit out widdout ah hep."


"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 19:40:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

meat, etc. (0.00 / 0)

Meat is nutritious.

I agree that our culture eats too much of it and overconsupmption of fat is bad. Studies in developing countries have shown benefits from modest meat consumption. Example at http://glcrsp.ucdavis.edu/podc...

I do think where there is a diversity of food available, that you can have a very nutritious vegetarian diet.

I have heard about antibiotic use and corn, but have not seen the scientific evidence to support this.

I agree that it is better that countries grow their own food than receive foop aid (which I think is the idea behind this bill). In the interim however, food aid keeps people from starving (I've seen it first-hand). We are involved in efforts to help build capacity in Africa:
http://www.monsanto.com/drough...
http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/...

On the natural resources in developing countries, I think you should speak to your elected officials rather than to Monsanto...

---

by: Brad @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 14:44:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Meat IS nutritious (4.00 / 1)

in limited amounts - not in the amounts in our current system, which is highly profitable for Monsanto.  It is not healthy the way it is raised on most farms and feedlots in the United States.  And it is extremely excessive because of the environmental damage that it does.

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

---

by: rossl @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 15:14:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh No! Monsanto is after me again! (4.00 / 2)

Sorry, I stand by my statement, we are  feeding animals and soft drink companies.

Here are a few figures from the US Corn Refiners Assn. and the University of Wisconsin.

""About 40 percent of grain corn is used for seed, industrial uses, and food in 2008. The major industrial use is for ethanol production (about 30% of the total 2008 grain crop) The main food use is for sweetener (for example in soft drinks, jams and jellies, and a wide range of processed foods). Corn Refiners Association Statistics Less than 5% of the US grain corn crop goes to human food other than sweetener.  

Soy, 6% of harvest used in US for seed, feed, human food other than oil, and industrial uses.""

We do not send much meat out as food aid as far as I know, and if, and I don't doubt you, corn is a critical component of food aid we can't be sending out all that much food aid are we?

If only 5% goes to human food, we are certainly consuming the vast majority of that domestically as Cheese Doodles or whatever, so the amount of corn going to international food aid is not much to brag about.

I have a question as well, if the first Green Revolution was such a success, why do we need a second one? Still, with the first one at least we knew that more fertilizer and hybrid seed would produce more yield, now the Gates Foundation is basing the second revolution on GM which is nothing more than a "promise" of better yield, drought resistance, ability to grow in saline soils. A promise, nothing more.

My first involvement with Monsanto concerned their laboratory produced hormone for cattle, rBGH or as they re-named it rBST. It had the promise to make dairy farmers very  profitable. Milk prices are about the same now as they were in 1978. Some promise.  

---

by: jgoodman @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 21:58:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK, which sustainable food activists? (4.00 / 5)

I hate to duck the question but my friend who recently has a Monsanto lawyer on his ass has not given me permission to share his identity. In fact, right now he's quickly scrambling around for a lawyer to advise him on what to do about the whole situation.

Regarding how Monsanto would profit - the bill requires research on GMOs as a part of our aid to their countries. It seems to me that opening the door for introducing GMOs to African nations (who might currently ban those GMOs or perhaps don't have a legal barrier to them but also don't have GMOs at present) would certainly help out all biotech companies, Monsanto included. While perhaps government-funded research could be carried out by government entities or academics and then the results could be given to starving nations free of charge, the report encouraged public-private partnerships. So in reality, it remains to be seen whether Monsanto or any other biotech company would profit but I would be shocked if GMOs were introduced to Africa in a way that DIDN'T profit American biotech firms. After all - part of the government's agenda is to profit Americans as they provide aid to other countries.

Re: your experiences in India in '91, I cannot contradict you. Perhaps I was misinformed when I read that 90% of Indian farmers used traditional (saved) seeds as of 1990 and market penetration rose throughout the 1990s. I also read that the suicides were a new phenomenon at that time. Certainly SOME had committed suicide before then but not at the high rates India has experienced for the past decade+. Again - if what I read was mistaken, then I too am mistaken.

Re: debt as the main factor in suicides - I agree 100%. But what caused the debt? Trade liberalization, for one. Lack of affordable credit or a government safety net for farmers. But also increased costs due to purchased seeds and crop inputs. Increasing your costs means you need higher revenues to cover those costs before you make a profit. If you were sold hybrid seeds and pesticides/fertilizer on the promise that they would increase your yields enough to account for the increased costs and that didn't happen, that's one way to go into debt.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 20:05:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

food activists (0.00 / 0)

Vandana Shiva, is probably not on Monsanto's list of supporters. She is a likely suspect.

---

by: jgoodman @ Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 22:19:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Monsanto legal action.. (0.00 / 0)

OK, if you can come up with specifics, I would be happy to discuss. Frankly I think it is a bit cheap to make such allegation if you cannot follow through on a disucssion on your allegations.

Legal action is every citizens right when they feel they have been wronged. Legal action in itself does not mean anyone acts inappropriately.  

Agreed on many of your points relative to debt.

Increased costs of purchasing seed and other inputs only increase debt if farmers do not get a return. Where they do not see a return, that technology is inappropriate. However, to assume that they do not/will not see a return is incorrect. Many have. I agree that efforts need to take place before a technology is introduced to ensure people can use it to its full opportunity.  

I do not believe Monsanto has taken legal action against Ms. Shiva (as noted below) although I think her efforts are grossly disingenuous and self-serving.  

---

by: Brad @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 14:52:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

technology is not science (4.00 / 4)

and technology becomes a habit. People in underdeveloped countries need to become more independent, not dependent on products that they cannot make themselves.

Monsanto is known for going about looking for their patented plant genomes and going after people for using them without paying Monsanto. What sort of favors is Monsanto doing these people by making them dependent on Monsanto products, instead of developing their own plant science based on plants they can develop and use without Monsanto making money from it?

I find your argument that pesticides and GMO are necessary to prevent women and girls from being sentenced to 80 hour weeding work weeks specious. There are huge problems with soil management that, if properly addressed, can lead to much higher yield on much smaller plots without using pesticides or GMO. That's where science comes in; people who work the soil understanding how its biology works, and promoting soil health and crop diversity to promote yields. People who will then be in control of their own lives, without Monsanto's help, thank you very much.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 18:43:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

soil mgmt (0.00 / 0)

I did no tsuggest that GMOs were the solution to getting women out of the field and learning rather than weeding. They are a potential part of solution in some cases, and then only when part of a larger integrated strategy.

I find it equally specious to sugges that soil management alone is the solution to thiese problems.  

---

by: Brad @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 14:54:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You need a thicker skin Brad (4.00 / 4)

You're hurt by an insult like bad guys? Your reaction couldn't be more juvenile. Your first sentence is much more of an insult than anything Jill wrote in this post. We're not opposed to agriculture technology. We're opposed to single minded agricultural technology. The type that is solely focused on yields, or profits, without taking into effect the myriad of externalities that go along with agricultural technology. We're focused first on what works, not first on how can we improve upon nature for a profit.

The problem with your business model, is that most times you won't be able to provide higher yields, a profit and minimal externalities, and at the same time have a barrier to entry that requires us to purchase this technology from you. If you do we'll be there to buy it from you... until then we're here to focus on the externalities that result from the current and former practices of companies that we largely disagree with, like Monsanto, Archers Daniels Midland, McDonalds and Coca Cola... you know.. the bad guys.

---

by: Curtis Abbey @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 19:41:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thin skin? (0.00 / 0)

I am not hurt. Trust me, I have a very thick skin. If I had a thin skin I certainly would not have ventured into this forum!

However, to simply label people who disagree with you as "bad guys" is juvenile. More importantly, it stands in the way of very necessary dialogue.

I do not think that GMOs are the solution to the problems of the world's poor. Nor do I think that crop rotation, soil managment, crop diversity, etc. are the solutions.

I do think that a combination of these technologies and strategies, applied in the appropriate manner and location ARE the solution to many problems.

Calling the proponenst of one side "bad guys" is a barrier to the real dialogue that  needs to take place.

Thin skin - no. Thinning patience - yes.  

---

by: Brad @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 14:57:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Bad guys" (0.00 / 0)

That's just writing style.  It's not entirely serious, but it's not joking, either, as I interpreted it.  You've heard of tongue-in-cheek writing, no?

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

---

by: rossl @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 21:00:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also, (0.00 / 0)

it's patently false to say or suggest that environmental activists are trying to keep anyone in poverty, or anything along those lines.  We disagree about how to get them out of poverty and starvation.  And remember - we're not the ones out to make a profit!

Vote for yourself at www.ni4d.us!

---

by: rossl @ Sun Apr 12, 2009 at 21:03:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

poverty (0.00 / 0)

I never said actists were trying to keep people in poverty.

I believe most folks, from Monsanto to Jill, have good intentions.  

---

by: Brad @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 14:59:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

another thing I'll add here (4.00 / 3)

is that the stock argument GM people like Monsanto use is that they're just doing what comes naturally.

They're not, and the big differences are in terms of scale. The genes they are manipulating come from widely different organisms, and they would like to introduce them on a much wider scale than happens when a single plant experiences a mutation of a single gene.

The end result is a faster increase in chaos. Chaos is a natural part of life and evolution, but it's always causing trouble for various species. If we are interested in perpetuating any species, plant or human, we need to focus on minimizing actions that increase chaos, not adding to them.

"If God were to appear to starving people, he would not dare to appear in any other form than food." - Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: Miep @ Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 20:56:21 PM CDT

natural is a continuum (0.00 / 0)

Is it natural for potatoes to be grown in India? Or tomatoes in Africa. Both originated from the New World.

I could argue that much of what we do in agriculture is unnatural. I could argue that it is unnatural that we have 6 billion people on the planet.

I understand the philosophical arguments agains GM. I simply don't agree with them, especially in the face of the challenges facing mankind.  

---

by: Brad @ Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 15:02:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]