About GMO's

As I have noted in previous items current day scientific efforts are being corrupted by money and government.  This item extends that assessment to include corporate greed, consequential contamination of soils and control over farmers seed choices.  Quote: Historically farmers harvested their own seeds and used then for the following years crops.  However, to offer a quote, "Under corporate farming, the exact opposite is true. Farmers are now indebted, beholden to corporations like Monsanto. Farmers have to pay Monsanto each year to use their genetically modified seeds. Scientists working for Monsanto edit the genome of seeds to give the seeds unique traits, like herbicide resistance. This seed technology is then patented, giving the Monsanto corporation authority over nature and control over agriculture. The genetically modified seed, which is subsidized by the government, quickly becomes the farmer's most efficient crop to plant.  In the aftermath, diverse, small farms that pay attention to soil quality and plant health fade away to large, pesticide-modulated farming operations that are only concerned with increasing yields. These operations focus solely on singular crops while destroying the natural environment with herbicides that affect pollinator health and diversity in the fields.  This control over nature forces farmers in this cycle of paying Monsanto yearly for their patented GM seed. These Roundup Ready seeds ensure Monsanto's dominance, bolstering the corporation's monopoly over both the GM seed and the herbicide that is used specifically for the seeds' edited genome. As Monsanto's GMO seed patents start to expire, many are wondering if farmers will free themselves from the Monsanto monopoly reigning over them."    http://www.naturalnews.com/050951_Monsanto_seed_patents_monopoly.html 

This should give those who consider GMO's to be safe because scientist say so reason to pause and reflect. Here are five cogent quotes: "By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. Into these plants we were putting DNA from various foreign organisms, such as viruses and bacteria."  And, "I now believe, as a much more experienced scientist, that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks. In broad outline, the reasons for this belief are quite simple. I have become much more appreciative of the complexity of biological organisms and their capacity for benefits and harms. As a scientist I have become much more humble about the capacity of science to do more than scratch the surface in its understanding of the deep complexity and diversity of the natural world. To paraphrase a cliché, I more and more appreciate that as scientists we understand less and less."  And, regarding experimental methods used, "...but when the results are inconvenient, and raise red flags, they blame the limitations of the antiquated method. This bulletproof logic, in which applicants claim safety no matter what the data shows, or how badly the experiment was performed, is routine in formal GMO risk assessment." And, "Aside from grave doubts about the quality and integrity of risk assessments, I also have specific science-based concerns over GMOs. I emphasise the ones below because they are important but are not on the lists that GMO critics often make."   And finally, "Science is not the only grounds on which GMOs should be judged. The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness. This drive is occurring at the expense of farmers, consumers and the natural world. US Farmers, for example, have seen seed costs nearly quadruple and seed choices greatly narrow since the introduction of GMOs. The fight over GMOs is not of narrow importance. It affects us all."   http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/growing-doubt-a-scientists-experience-of-gmos/

Regarding research of pesticides and the like, Monsanto has an interesting approach to a problem with which they have admitted culpability.  Round-up has been linked to the rapidly declining bee population.  Given bees importance to our food supply Monsanto has come up with a solution. Engineer a replacement for the bees.  Quote: "So, once again, we are seeing proof of Monsanto's endgame, complete corporate control of our food supply. They admit their GMO foods and pesticides are killing our bees, but instead of putting the welfare of the entire world's food supply ahead of their corporate greed, they will create a new abomination while their poisonous plants and chemicals continue to wreak havoc on current and future biodiversity."   http://www.naturalnews.com/050993_flying_ants_genetically_engineered_Monsanto.html   Do you think they can teach the bees how to make honey, too?

Do you still believe GMOs are scientically sound and safe for consumers to eat and good for farmers and their farm lands?  If so, read this.  Quote: "The USDA conducted its first survey this year of the financial losses suffered by non-GMO and organic farmers from contamination. They did so at the urging of rights groups such as Food and Water Watch, who conducted their own survey in 2013.  That report found that one in three farmers had dealt with GMO contamination, causing many buyer rejections at a median cost of $4,500 each rejection. Considering the 77-fold increase in financial burden since previous years, it is clear that the biotech industry is pushing their competition toward financial ruin.  But genetic contamination is only half the story. The USDA’s report excludes losses incurred from pesticide drift, which occurs when crops such as Monsanto’s “RoundUp Ready” corn are sprayed and the chemical drifts onto nearby fields. This will become a bigger burden as more chemical–resistant GMO crops are approved by friendly federal agencies."   http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/organic-farmers-suffer-77-fold-increase-in-lost-revenue-from-gmo-contamination-in-last-3-years/

A good friend of mine shared this item with me.  It represents the other side of the argument.   http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

I leave it to you to decide your position on the matter.  I think the side I come down on has rationale far more powerful than supporting huge agribusiness over potential human health problems, environmental contamination with products such as Round-up causing a dramatic rise in super weeds requiring the use of ever more powerful chemicals, destroying beneficial insects such as honey bees, protecting agribusiness's attempt to gain a monopoly of food supplies by patenting seeds which increase farmer costs and reduce availability, engaging in unfair competition with small family farms and organic farming enterprises, and more.  Ask yourself why is it they are working so hard to deny us access to what they are doing to the food we eat and the damage they are doing to farmers and the environment?  GMO labeling should not be an issue but their position not to label should concern everyone...what are they hiding.  I reject their "trust us we do good" motives when it is obvious they seek to improve their bottom line using tactics that are anti-competitive, secretive and unethical, all at our expense.  Finally, it is no wonder that they are fighting lawsuit after lawsuit and consumer resistance around the globe, buying both pro-GMO advertising and political support, spending billions of dollars doing so.  Seems to me that this is just another crony capitalism enterprise using government assistance to gain monopolistic control of the food business in anticipation of future mega profits.

 
George Burns