Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
Sun Oct 30, 2016, 04:38 PM Oct 2016

New York Times: Broken Promises of GMO Crops [View all]

Broken Promises of Genetically Modified Crops
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/30/business/gmo-crops-pesticides.html



Always amazing when you see what we all should already know finally covered in the New York Times: GMOs do not increase crop yield, let alone present a solution to problems of nutrition or world hunger, as Russell and Hakim report.

Nothwithstanding unproven claims about the health effects of the GMO food itself, GMOs have had two main impacts:

(1) Pesticide and herbicide resistant crops mean that farmers use more pesticides and herbicides, so that higher concentrations of these poisons end up in the environment and in our bodies.

(2) Corporations claim patent and ownership on seeds harvested by farmers to the nth generation, effectively acting as feudal lords demanding annual tribute from peasants. Thus the evil is not in the product itself, but in the radically new business model it enables, which overturns 10,000 years of social and agricultural practice. Farmers do not own the seeds they grow.

This profit-making combination is why the world's biggest chemicals producer, Bayer, is attempting to merge with the world's biggest producer of GMO seeds, Monsanto. The neoliberal trade treaties TPP and TTIP, if they go into effect, would allow such companies a new and near-absolute power to overturn potential governmental regulations of their products and markets. It would mean more GMO production, more patenting of organisms and claims on the incomes of farmers globally, and more poisons in the environment.

The great lie of the GMO-producing corporations has been that GMOs produce higher yields and thus possible solutions to hunger. They have coupled this with lies about enhanced nutritional value, such as the "golden rice" with extra Vitamin A (betacarotenes, actually) they always advertise but have chosen not to introduce, probably because it does not work. And if "golden rice" is supposed to be a humanitarian move, why would they not give away the technology, as Norman Borlaug did during the Green Revolution?

Meanwhile the world produces much more food than all of its people need to eat. Hunger is a problem of poverty, inequality, markets and distribution, as well as regional ecological disasters. The pro-GMO ideology makes things worse by distracting from the real problems, by implying there is global scarcity that can be addressed by a capitalist, technocratic quick-fix. Stop worrying about poverty - GMOs will feed everyone! (One factor that always interests me is the incredible way the U.S. puts nearly half of its corn into gas tanks, at a net energy gain of near-zero.)

Meanwhile the industrial farming mentality that promotes GMOs has also encouraged the spread of monoculture farming, with attendant impact on what quality of food ends up at the supermarket at what prices.

By the way, my prediction is that you will see the Times publish some kind of outraged corporate damage control attacking this as "unscientific."
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
(Usual suspects, place your attacks in this spot.) JackRiddler Oct 2016 #1
Interesting when what usually happens doesn't happen. JackRiddler Oct 2016 #15
Maybe it is partly because your OP is a dupe. yellowcanine Oct 2016 #16
Irrelevant distraction. JackRiddler Nov 2016 #19
Just pointing out why the "usual suspects" might not be showing up. yellowcanine Nov 2016 #23
I don't. Thanks. JackRiddler Nov 2016 #26
Here ya go... progressoid Nov 2016 #18
Thank you for doing more than name calling. kristopher Nov 2016 #22
Why does the NYT hate science ;-) CentralMass Oct 2016 #2
I'm sure some pseudo-scientific psychology theses will solve that. JackRiddler Oct 2016 #10
Would you like to know what is the most probable reason for the schism? kristopher Nov 2016 #24
Thanks for an interesting read. JackRiddler Nov 2016 #25
Crosspost this in the Skeptics Forum. Wilms Oct 2016 #3
Please do. It's a story worth kicking. JackRiddler Oct 2016 #6
My guess is some GMO supporters rail against big pharma which is also science upaloopa Oct 2016 #4
Wait for the DDT endorsements, they're often not far behind. JackRiddler Oct 2016 #7
"I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs... nationalize the fed Oct 2016 #5
I Rec this thread and your post too! Good links! K&R,nt. druidity33 Oct 2016 #8
Thank you. JackRiddler Oct 2016 #9
Every time GMO's are discussed, this asshole Steven Druker is brought in. Archae Oct 2016 #11
Well he has a lot of endorsements nationalize the fed Oct 2016 #12
Nat Goldhaber was one of the founders of and a graduate of Maharishi University PufPuf23 Oct 2016 #13
Avoiding the OP, are we? JackRiddler Oct 2016 #14
Kick And Recommend. kristopher Oct 2016 #17
K&R Doremus Nov 2016 #21
Water has the biggest impact on yield, fertilizer the second bhikkhu Nov 2016 #27
The issue for me is not the GMO, it is the business model. JackRiddler Nov 2016 #28
And bump! JackRiddler Nov 2016 #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New York Times: Broken Pr...