Get Jill's new lazy vegetarian cooking eBook:
Pay what you can

Order Prints:

Specify size
Name of photo
Your Walgreens (pick up photo here)


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

Why I Oppose GMOs

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 23:09:25 PM PST


Bookmark and Share
Last June I attended the big biotech annual convention, BIO 2008. I was anti-GMO on principle before I went in but it wasn't one of my bigger issues. During the many presentations I attended, I started wondering, "Why not use GMOs? These people seem like good people. They have noble goals, it seems. What's really wrong with them?"

Then, when I thought critically about GMOs after fully informing myself on them directly from the top experts in the world I realized that I STRONGLY oppose them for a LONG list of very well-founded AND SCIENTIFIC reasons.

If Tom "I Heart Monsanto" Vilsack is going to be head of Obama's USDA, I think we need to get the message out there loud and clear why specifically GMOs aren't a good idea. It's a complex matter and there's no good way to reduce it down to a simple slogan or bumper sticker, but in the end it IS simple that GMOs are a bad thing.

Jill Richardson :: Why I Oppose GMOs
About the danger of GMOs, it boils down to one phrase: "You can't put the genie back in the bottle." We need to be DARN SURE that a GMO is safe before we allow it. And think about this: the entire world takes the risk, but only the biotech company reaps the profit. In other words, they are in a position to be much less risk-averse than they ought to be about their own products.

Why We "Need" GMOs
One thing I realized while I was at BIO was that GMOs are created to fix a lot of problems that don't require fixing - or to fix them in ways that have cheaper, safer, existing fixes already out there.

>> Solving World Hunger
Gee, wouldn't it be cool if we could genetically modify up some crops that produce like crazy and resist pests and drought? Then we'd have so much food we can solve world hunger!

The faulty logic here is that world hunger comes from a lack of food. It doesn't. Not one bit. Want proof? We have enough food in America to feed every single person (including babies) something like 3900 calories PER DAY. We have so much corn that we put it in our cars! We have so many potatoes we make plastic out of them! And yet, we still have hunger.

11.1% of Americans were food insecure in 2007 and 1/3 of that group were hungry. The problem wasn't growing too little food. The same is true if you look at global numbers. Yet all of the pretty marketing materials for the biotech industry refer to 800 million hungry people worldwide. We have enough food in the world - we'd just rather throw it away than give it to people who can't pay for it.

>>Reducing Pesticide Use
This is also a noble goal, but it's one that can't be best accomplished by GMOs. To an extent it can, but that would be like saying an SUV is a great way of saving gas compared to a Hummer while ignoring the Prius in the next parking space over. In Rodale Institute's farm systems trials that they've done for over 20 years, they found the best yield came from organics (compared to conventional & GMO crops) in most years. So the food grown with zero pesticides was more successful than the food grown with GMOs and pesticides.

Also consider the amount of extra herbicide used on Roundup Ready GMO crops. These are crops that are made to resist Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. Roundup kills everything green, so normally you wouldn't be able to douse your entire field with it. When you plant Roundup Ready seeds, you CAN spray it all over the field and it kills everything except for the GMOs. So while some GMOs allow for less pesticide use than normal in a conventional system, other GMOs increase pesticide use. And even with the GMOs using decreased amounts of pesticides, they still do not equal the decrease that is accomplished by going organic.

>>Extra nutrients!
It's a nice idea, right? But there's not much of a market for it. Farmers who grow commodity crops get paid for yield, not nutrient content. Monsanto and the other biotech companies know this. The farmers aren't going to pay extra for GMO seeds that have the same yield but more nutrition than cheaper, non-GMO seeds. Maybe the farmers are wonderful, altruistic people, but they are already barely squeaking by financially. Paying extra for seeds that net you no extra profit is just dumb.

What about Golden Rice though? It's the rice that looks golden because they modified it to produce beta-carotene to help people in developing nations get their vitamin A. Well, first off, they did it as a PR stunt... notice that since golden rice came out there haven't been any other "extra nutritious" GMOs. These crops take millions in R&D and they need to make money!

But there's something else you should know about Golden Rice. Because you might be saying to yourself "Well maybe it was a PR stunt but if it helps malnourished people get vitamin A then it's still a good thing." And that is correct... if that's what were going on. As it turns out, you would have to eat 12 times more rice than normal to get all of your vitamin A from it. In other words, it's a total sham.

Why I Oppose GMOs
The biotech industry likes to say "science is on our side" and "anyone who oppose GMOs is anti-science." That could not be further from the truth in my own case. Yes, maybe there are people out there who are spooked by the idea of "eating DNA" even though every single plant and animal cell you ever eat has DNA in it. And sure, that's a ridiculous fear. But that's not my complaint against GMOs.

Our plants and animals grow and live in a ridiculously complex ecosystem. Think of all of the tiny little microbes in the soil that we probably haven't even discovered yet. They are all there, doing their jobs. Now that we do have pretty good microbiologists, we know some of what they do, too. They protect plants from disease and pests and they bring nutrients to plants. And sure, there are some bad ones out there too that prey on our crops or our livestock, but in a healthy ecosystem those harmful ones are in check.

The food web starts with these tiny microbes, and with all of the worms and bugs hanging out in the soil or in the air. They eat each other, sometimes they live harmoniously with one another, but they are all there. Usually we pay no attention to them. When there's biodiversity among them, the system stays pretty well in balance. No one species' population can grow unchecked, nor will any one species all die off instantaneously.

These microbes and other tiny critters are also responsible for making sure the soil can absorb and hold water, and for cycling nutrients from decaying organisms into the soil. Plants are pretty clever at manipulating the microbes, believe it or not, because they actually get the soil microbes to bring them the nutrients they need. In other words, a healthy, diverse soil ecosystem means more nutritious food.

Because of the healthy soil, plants can survive better in heat, cold, drought, and floods. And with all of the populations keeping the other ones in check, there's less chance for a huge pest outbreak. But that is in an organic system only. Add pesticides or commercial fertilizer and you throw that ecosystem out of balance. Because the ecosystem is so complex, human meddling almost always has unforeseen consequences. And GMOs are most definitely considered human meddling.

Each new gene or adaptation had unforeseen consequences as well. Sometimes they were probably major consequences. But the changes occurred over millions of years and over time the ecosystem reached some sort of equilibrium. Nature ran its own R&D very, very slowly, and it worked out all the kinks. Now we have its latest and most up to date models of each species, and we can be sure we'll continue to get new upgrades each time a gene mutates or an animal or plant mates and then the organisms with the best DNA have advantages over less successful organisms and perpetuate their genes to the next generation.

So what about GMOs? Well, we tinker with a gene or two, and then we put it out in nature for a test run. Over time, nature will work it out. Nature always does. But it does it on nature's schedule... the resulting chaos in the ecosystem could even take thousands of years to be resolved. Nature and humans work on very different timelines. In other words, we can really screw ourselves with GMOs in the short run, even if nature successfully incorporates our GMOs into the ecosystem in the long run.

The difference between GMOs and pesticides is that GMOs are forever. Some pesticides stay in the environment for a long time. Others can break down in the environment rather quickly. But what's a long time for a pesticide? A century? That's the blink of an eye in the evolutionary process. The amount of risk involved in putting GMOs into the environment WILL NEVER equal the benefit, particularly considering the non-risky options we have at our fingertips for accomplishing the same goals.

Another point I realized when I was at the BIO conference was that GMOs are generally designed to do one thing. For example, a drought-resistant seed is made to resist drought... ONLY. So that does not mean that that particular variety is the most resistant to any one pest or disease, or is the most high-yielding.

When you plant the seed designed for drought resistance (and pay a premium for it) you're essentially making a bet that you'll have a drought that year. Maybe you do, and you grow more than your neighbor who bought the high-yielding non-drought resistant hybrid seeds. Or maybe you get a decent amount of rain and your neighbor's high yielding seeds grew much more than your average yielding drought-resistant ones.

When you focus on the soil instead of manipulating the genes for one trait, you can maximize EVERYTHING at once. You can go for most nutrients, drought resistance, heat resistance, flood resistance, cold resistance, pest resistance, etc. Living soil will provide ALL of those things to the plant. After all, nature's been perfecting its system for millions of years. So remind me again, why are we taking a huge risk to maximize ONE trait when we can take NO risk and get everything we want instead?

Also, consider the role of biodiversity within each species of plant or animal. Blogger Land of Enchantment gives a great example with her own orchard. She plants many different varieties of each fruit tree. She lives in an area that could get a late frost and she figures that no matter when the last frost comes during the spring, there will be at least one of her trees that can still produce fruit. If she had an entire orchard of identical trees, then one late frost could mean no fruit at all that year.

The biotech company's response to questions about the need for biodiversity is something like "Well, we'll buy up and patent all of the seeds and then if we ever need one, we'll have it hanging around in a vault somewhere." Thanks but no thanks. We need biodiversity NOW. Land of Enchantment's orchard would get very little help from diverse seeds that were sitting in a Monsanto seed vault while Monsanto only sells one type of seed on the market.

Biodiversity and GMOs do not mix and there is a simple reason why. When you're a company maximizing your profit, you want bang for your buck. Each GMO product requires years of R&D and millions of dollars. You want to develop seeds that you can sell to as wide a market as possible. You don't want to develop 4000 varieties of GMO corn. You want one. Maybe two. You want a few really, really successful varieties that you can sell to every single corn farmer on the planet. That's gonna get you the most profit.

She Swallowed the Spider to Catch the Fly
Remember the old lady who swallowed a fly? Then she kept swallowing progressively more absurd things in order to mitigate the problem caused by swallowing the fly. Each successive "solution" was worse than each successive problem. THAT is what biotech ultimately is, in practice - even if in theory it could be some noble scientific thing.

First we swallowed the fly by adopting monoculture crops and pesticides and by assuming we could fertilize them with N,P, and K alone (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium). We throw the ecosystem out of balance, creating MORE fluctuation in populations of each individual species, and leave our crops more open to pest problems. Then we pour on the fertilizer and let half of it leach out of the soil into the waterways, creating dead zones in our oceans.

GMOs are just swallowing the spider to catch the fly. Sure, we might use less pesticide here and there, or we might get a higher yield or less loss to pests one year. But we aren't solving the overall problem. We're just further entrenching it while making new problems.

So THAT is why I oppose GMOs. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Tom Vilsack!

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Why I Oppose GMOs | 14 comments
Sing along with me (4.00 / 1)
I know an old lady who swallowed a fly
I don't know why she swallowed the fly
Perhaps she'll die

I know an old lady who swallowed a spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
But I don't know why she swallowed the fly
Perhaps she'll die

I know an old lady who swallowed a bird
How absurd to swallow a bird
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
But I don't know why she swallowed the fly
Perhaps she'll die

I know an old lady who swallowed a cat
Imagine that. She swallowed a cat.
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
But I don't know why she swallowed that fly
Perhaps she'll die

I know an old lady who swallowed a dog
What a hog to swallow a dog!
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
But I don't know why she swallowed that fly
Perhaps she'll die

I know an old lady who swallowed a goat
Opened her throat and down went the goat!
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
But I don't know why she swallowed that fly
Perhaps she'll die

I know an old lady who swallowed a cow
I don't know how she swallowed the cow
She swallowed the cow to catch the goat
She swallowed the goat to catch the dog
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly
But I don't know why she swallowed that fly
Perhaps she'll die

I know an old lady who swallowed a horse
She's alive and well of course!



"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

I wholly concur with this diary!... (4.00 / 1)
I'm on the run and will write a more substantial post later....

Sic Transit Gloria Locavore!



[ Parent ]
Well, most of what I wanted to say appeared in your DKos version. (4.00 / 2)
It's ironic that your diaries, and some of mine and others who take a stand against Monsanto & all, get a ferocious response from biotechs aficionados (or are they really on these companies's payroll, as suggested by many in the past?) It reminds me of the dozens of Pentagon shills/hacks who got royally paid to write supportive POV's of the Iraq war.

Sic Transit Gloria Locavore!



[ Parent ]
I KNOW! (4.00 / 2)
it's crazy!! They just love calling anything we say "anti-science" or "knee jerk" - and of course it's obvious that our disagreement with GMOs is neither. I don't get it, truly. There was one person going through the diary comments yesterday who was even poo-pooing organics.

"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

[ Parent ]
I went to talk last week (0.00 / 0)

at our county farm week by a recently retire Prof from one the largest AG programs in the country.  Her talk was about 'organics' but not in the way they're usually discussed.  She was looking at the future of Ag as a whole in terms of farm practices.  Although she didn't talk about GMO's specifically and when she did it wasn't a yay or nay either way she did touch on the practices of growing with both GMO's and other hybrids.  Namely in terms of the inputs and resources needed to grow them.  In the future with oil becoming more expensive which means more expensive fertilizers as well as the whole issue of a limited phosphorus supply the driving factors just in basic terms of 'costs' and in the case of phosphorus eventual shortages,  will invariably push farming practices in a more 'organic' direction.   She gave examples of it already happening.  

Most GMO's are partnered with a whole lot of inputs whether it's fertilizers or other chemicals.  Right now they based as much on a 'economic' argument as they are a yield one.  Future forces and factors coming down the line,  will more then likely change the economic part of the argument and make them less viable and desirable, or at least in how they are looked at now.

One point she made was that as we move into an era of more expensive oil with an AG system based on cheap oil and energy as a driving design factor that some of the arguments made against 'organics' particularly about yields are based on an assumption, that the current system will be able to maintain yields as they stand now.  This is debatable if you look at the entire system of how food is produced now and play with the 'cost' of energy input factors. It changes everything.    Economically it may be 'cheaper' to use what now people consider 'organic' methods of farming and more expensive energy inputs will drive practices in that direction.  Essentially what people conceive 'organic' to be now will become, by necessity conventional.  

  She's wasn't even to fussed with that focusing on organic as a term either.  Her focus was mainly on ecology and ecologically successful practices and was challenging people to move beyond just "organic" or not 'organic' in the way they think about farming and farming practices.  GMO's as they stand now with their high input needs are one of the things that could very well lose their 'conventional' status because ecologically in terms of just basic growing practices their 'success' is dependent on an industrial system that will not be the same as it is now.  


[ Parent ]
Ha. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure how this post came up when I loaded the site up.  I thought it was a recent post and not a couple of years old.  :)  

[ Parent ]
the prof (0.00 / 0)
What is the professor's name? Was she at Guelph?

[ Parent ]
Yes. (4.00 / 1)

Ann Clark. (not sure about the spelling)

You know about her?  

I really thought her talk was great.  She got me and whole lot of others really thinking.  


[ Parent ]
I've heard her (0.00 / 0)
on Deconstructing Dinner podcasts.

[ Parent ]
Ah cool. (4.00 / 1)

 I talked to her afterwards and she said she would send me a copy of the notes for the talk.  I'm thinking of asking her if it would be okay if I used them in some blog postings about the whole talk.    

[ Parent ]
gmos on bbc radio (4.00 / 2)
two part episode on GM crops. reports from farmers in India, scientific analysis, good commentary overall.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/pod...


Reductionist Nightmare (0.00 / 0)
Jill,

Your love of the earth notwithstanding, there wasn't really anything approaching "science" in that posting.  I'm no fan of pesticide or fertilizer, but what you wrote doesn't actually advance the case against GMOs.  It was excessively colloquial, tended towards ranting/raving as opposed to explaining, and was chock of holes.  I appreciate that you chose to rebut the claims of the pro-GMO side, but unless you're just fulminating to hear the applause from your own friends, the posting isn't going to accomplish much.  It neither engages the opposition nor leaves any ground for resolution.

I don't want Monsanto to rule the world, and I don't want to see the nitrogenous dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico continue to grow unabated, but you have to understand your audience.  Any chance you actually talked to people at BIO 2008 without castigating them?


More thoughts on GMOs (0.00 / 0)
Jill,

I really appreciate this, helps me make more clear my own sentiments, as apparently a defender of biotech here, which is not something I would have done a few years ago.

I suggest there is simple rule that might lead to stopping bad GMO crops, at least a line to draw:

> If it is transgenic or requires chemical inputs it's not acceptable. <

Biotech ag has been mis-appropriated by Monsanto and others, with the insect and pesticide tolerant transgenic crops they have foisted on us. Clearly, a crop that requires toxic chemicals, leaves soil sapped and watersheds polluted is not sustainable.

But plant grafting is a form of genetic modification, hmm? Genetic modification is a fact of life today, has been for centuries. We will go there - we have. There's no turning that clock back. As I've said, after some serious study, I think cisgenic biotech is more acceptable.

For those unfamiliar, transgenic means genes moved across species and cisgenic means genes moved within species, which is what grafting and other conventional plant breeding methods also do. The biggest issues are associated with transgenic technology.

Hairs can be split on my suggestion and I mean it to apply primarily to open pollinated field crops. Gene flow, biodiversity, water and soil contamination problems can be avoided in laboratory and greenhouse, contained environment efforts.

The genie is out of the bottle, indeed, and I think the best we can do is selectively attack the worst of it. Once again, humans have done something because we could, not necessarily because we should, driven by power and control interests... an old story that just keeps coming around, it seems.

A by the way, based on reading 50 or so scientific reports on the subject in the past couple years... If a soil test requirement for the release of GMOs into the enviroment were adopted, it would stop a lot of the bad actors in their tracks. It is their Achilles heel because it has not been systematically tested. Only a few of those studies looked at soil effects, most not at all, yet nearly all said soil effects should be tested more....  


omg what a great idea to do a soil test (4.00 / 1)
what do you think would happen?

"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

[ Parent ]
Why I Oppose GMOs | 14 comments
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- Kenya Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox