Leading Environmental Activist’s Confession: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMO's

[Oxymoron]

If Monsanto were so bad for farmers, farmers here in the US, Canada, and all over the world wouldn't be using their technology. Hell, it's eve so good that Argentines are stealing it, how can it be so bad?

Argentina's problems cannot be blamed on a company who is essentially getting nothing for their technology, a company for which the peope snub their noses at the vast investments the company has made to provide massive increases in world food supplies.

You can only blame the Argentinians for their own problems.

They left Monsanto out of the game, sorry for giving you a hard time, and goodbye.

You really do like a win win situation Jay, here we are using farmers 'use' of Monsanto seeds as evidence of how good Monsanto is but when people burn tons of the stuff elsewhere, that is not proof of how bad Monsanto is, it's just proof of how stupid and ungrateful the farmers are.

The guy states:

For me this anti-science environmentalism became increasingly inconsistent with my pro-science environmentalism with regard to climate change. I published my first book on global warming in 2004, and I was determined to make it scientifically credible rather than just a collection of anecdotes.

It looks to me... but that's maybe just my suspicious nature, that there was/is a 'trade off', a realisation that 'I cannot use fake science to prove 'climate change' whilst denying fake science to prove there is nothing wrong with GMO' and I won't get any funding for climate change research until I recant on the GMO issue'.

 

[HappyMonday]

The guy states:

It looks to me... but that's maybe just my suspicious nature, that there was/is a 'trade off', a realisation that 'I cannot use fake science to prove 'climate change' whilst denying fake science to prove there is nothing wrong with GMO' and I won't get any funding for climate change research until I recant on the GMO issue'.

Despite posting this originally, I only just watched the speech itself. I didn't interpret it that way at all.

Perhaps dig out some verifiable evidence for this suggestion before giving in to your suspicious nature?

 

[HappyMonday]

Good God, what a pile of tripe.

The most ludicrous point in the article would have to be

Moreover, the reason why big companies dominate the industry is that anti-GMO activists and policymakers have made it too difficult for small startups to enter the field

To suggest massive corporations like Monsanto would gladly share their rapidly expanding corner of the global food market with 'small start-up GMOs', whatever the hell those would be, if only the bully activists and regulators would leave them alone, is about as cynically stupid an implication as could ever be made. These are the same companies that sue American farmers when their previously natural crops are unintentionally pollinated by GMO crops.

I think the article is overly simplistic here. The only relevant section of the lecture transcript upon which it is based I can find is -

And, thanks to supposedly environmental campaigns spread from affluent countries, we are perilously close to this position now. Biotechnology has not been stopped, but it has been made prohibitively expensive to all but the very biggest corporations.
It now costs tens of millions to get a crop through the regulatory systems in different countries. In fact the latest figures I’ve just seen from CropLife suggest it costs $139 million to move from discovering a new crop trait to full commercialisation, so open-source or public sector biotech really does not stand a chance.

There is a depressing irony here that the anti-biotech campaigners complain about GM crops only being marketed by big corporations when this is a situation they have done more than anyone to help bring about.

In the EU the system is at a standstill, and many GM crops have been waiting a decade or more for approval but are permanently held up by the twisted domestic politics of anti-biotech countries like France and Austria. Around the whole world the regulatory delay has increased to more than 5 and a half years now, from 3.7 years back in 2002. The bureaucratic burden is getting worse.

Content from External Source

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

 

[Grieves]

Grieves, isn't it clear enough that Monsanto isn't the all-powerful demon in Argentina you were led to believe? They cannot even enforce their patents there.

I never suggested they were. Just that they were a powerful corporation complicit in (not solely responsible for) the troubles in Argentina. Its true that their own corrupt government is largely responsible, but the money behind that corruption, the money which fuels it, has its roots in corporate contributions, on the books and off. Monsanto isn't solely responsible, and they're not a demon. Humanitarian considerations simply don't factor largely into their endeavor, as can be easily reviewed in their less than spotless history the Argentina troubles aside. An effort to globalize agriculture with free and bold use of GMO's, if made at all, should be made with humanitarian considerations in the forefront of the minds of all involved.

As for blaming the people of Argentina, that's fair and it's not. Its asking a lot of most people to stand up against their governments in an active roll. I think its asking far too much of the families who'd lives had been hardly glamorous but relatively happy until the forests that were their livelihood became soy-fields that weren't.

a dysfunctional society in which people are so ignorant or could care less and are willing to put up with such a situation. I know some abou Latin America, and while it's not as screwed up as Africa it has deep deep problems.

keep in mind hunger/poverty is a growing issue in the United States, and looms over my home as well in many areas. In fact, Canada has its own groups of neglected indigenous peoples, many communities in the north-west territories / Nunavut lacking in reliable supplies of clean water/functional plumbing at no great fault to their own, simply because the government has failed to treat the situation with the urgency it would in southern provinces, while corruption runs rampant in reservations and surrounding their treatment. The thing is, its truly unnecessary, from Argentina to America to Africa and beyond. It's all -entirely- needless. There is enough food production on the planet to feed everyone easily and comfortably. That's not a hippie pipe-dream, its the simple facts of the matter. If we could all simply agree to do it, and really work at it, it would be done... but alas that's the hippie pipe-dream, and we're nowhere near it being possible. That known, is it alright to allow corporations, even if they're not devils and are just trying to make a fast and dirty buck, to behave the way they behave in regards to food markets? Should things like artificial inflation be able to influence whether or not thousands, or even just a single person can afford to eat?

sorry for giving you a hard time, and goodbye.

I do appreciate that. I'm sorry myself our discussion got so contentious.

I think the article is overly simplistic here.

The article is unquestionably something of a propaganda piece, which is why my reaction to it was a little more colorful than usual. Not so sure about mr. Mark, but..

twisted domestic politics of anti-biotech countries like France and Austria.

it was his somewhat frequent attacks of governing bodies that helped lead me to suspect someone is slipping him some coin. To crap all over foreign governments for refusing GMO's without touching on the sovereignty issues involved in letting a foreign (or I suppose Global, as its hard to say Monsanto is a 'USA' company any more) corporation gain a firm hold on your farmers is relatively shady. It's obviously one of the issues on France/Austria's mind, and that he'd leave it out to make it sound like quackery is the only reason for their decision is misleading, whether intentional or otherwise.

 

[Jay_Bee]

Monsanto's actions, like the Green Revolution and hi-tech agriculture in general, has led to the loss of genetic diversity in our staple crops. Strains of rice, corn, and other crops had become locally adapted over time, they contained a wide variety of genes that might provide protection against the next Irish Potato Famine type event. I think moving in that direction might be great for productivity and profits in the short run, but could be disastrous in the medium to long term. The use of bovine growth hormone does increase milk production, but it also makes cows more susceptible to mastitis and other infections, and it increases the use of antibiotics. In terms of breeding bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and might make the jump to humans, that also seems unwise. The introduction of BGH has done nothing to help the farmer - his margin is as tight as ever, still scraping to get by. But if the farmer feels that he needs to shell out money for BGH just so he doesn't fall behind at a faster rate, then that is a great strategy for Monsanto. The most profitable strategy for Monsanto has been its seed engineered to resist Round-Up. This has led to a large increase in the use of that herbicide, which may (or may not) be less toxic or more biodegradable than some other herbicides -- though it is not truly benign. It also appears not only that weeds are being selected for their natural ability to resist round-up through normal selection pressures, but also that the genes for round-up resistance have jumped the species barrier ... genetic pollution. In another form of genetic pollution, a farmer who chooses not to plant GMO crops can have his crop contaminated by the pollen from a neighbors field. According to the legal theories that Monsanto is promoting (and often getting enacted into law), that farmer would be breaking the law to replant his own seed, since it contains intellectual property owned by Monsanto. Such actions seem blatantly unjust and an abuse of the companies size and power. So I must say that I am flabbergasted by all the bogus stories involving Monsanto and chemtrails, or genocide, or whatever flights of fancy are being circulated. There are enough clearly documented negative externalities of the company's actions that there is really no need to make stuff up.