Why I Love GMOs
Libertarian Opposition To GMOs Is A Mistake
The dark is scary because it’s the unknown. When man is deprived of one of his most fundamental modes of perception, his sight, he becomes anxious, cautious and nervous, and with good reason. It’s hard to evaluate potential dangers when you can’t see. This fear of the dark so common in humans reflects a more general unease at unfamiliar situations, which socially is reflected as a kind of reactionary spirit in suspicion and opposition to new things and ideas.
Science, being the chief mechanism for introducing novelty to mankind, (and yet grasped at only an elementary level by the masses), is therefore often a target for suspicion and mistrust less fit than darkness. Fracking, nuclear Power, the theory of evolution, and certain advancements in genetics have, despite scientific consensus been the targets of populist opposition, which can, through the wisdom of our glorious democratic system, spill into the domain of government enforcement.
One example of this relevant of late is that of GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, defined by the international regulatory agreements as “any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. Of course, novelty and modernity are relative terms, humans have been intentionally modifying living things through selective breeding for thousands of years. Due to recent advances in technology however, we’re now able to do so much more efficiently than our ancestors.
This of course carries the great humanitarian benefit of increasing crop yield, something surely any bleeding heart could get behind? But no, even while people the world over are ravaged by hunger and malnutrition it is supposed that the harm of “frankenfoods” outweigh the benefits.
So what exactly are the dangers of genetically modified foods, so dangerous that they can dissuade a rational person even from what could be a crucial blow against starvation? It doesn’t take much evidence, apparently.
Recently a team of Italian scientists led by Alessandro Nicolia have complied a great body of research done in the last decade, including 1,783 research papers and other relevant scholarly materials, weighing them against each other have concluded: “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops.”
Keep in mind that this is not a new study, just a conclusive restatement of what has been the scientific consensus since at least 2002, the beginning of the period the reviewed studies were published in. Sadly however, democracy is not about what is factually correct, what is efficient, or what is just. It’s about what the majority believes, and the 51% is fickle and easily swayed into nonsense.
So it is this Wednesday when Washington State will vote on initiative 522: which will force food manufacturers to label GMO products as such. Let’s be clear: the anti GMO movement won’t stop at mandatory labeling, because why should they? They believe the stuff to be poison and at least for the most part they have the ideology that the people must be protected from the cabal of market capitalism which is always out to get them for profits (as though killing one’s customers was a sustainable business model).
However, it’s not all nanny statists who support initiative 522 and the like. Among the libertarian movement there has arisen a faction firmly opposed to GMOs with some even willing to allow the state to regulate them, because big carrots are a greater threat to the society than the expansion of state power.
Aside from the fact that they are feeding a dangerous fire of anti-science populism, this plainly compromises the very foundation of libertarianism: voluntary cooperation and emergent order. Make no mistake, mandatory labeling is coercion. Even if you don’t care about the non-aggression principle, think of the implications of such a position: How feasible is freedom really if we need a state just to food manufacturers from poisoning us?
Libertarians often make the argument for drug legalization that your body is your own to put whatever you want into, if it helps then, just think of GMOs like a drug. A drug with no scientifically confirmed danger to humans that “cures” hunger.
This is just garbage. If you want to increase food without needing GMO foods as the excuse, remove regulations and subsidies paying farmers to NOT grow food (in order to keep prices up). Independent groups such as the Non GMO project are not government entities allowing consumers know what they are buying, thus providing a choose to freely choose to purchase items with GMO products or not. GMOs are patented by the pesticide companies to be resistant as they sell more chemicals to spray. This is creating super-weeds, linked to killing bees and insects among many harmful interactions in animals tested and so on…
But why in this article are you against labeling as a libertarian information is important so individuals can make choices sure also legalize drugs but I would t want them not to be labeled
My big gripe with GMOs, as a conservative libertarian, is the patenting of the plants to the point that if your seeds blow into my field and start growing, I can be found at-fault by the GMO patent holder.
Just buy labeled products. Problem solved.
You sure are taking an extremely narrow viewpoint to GMOs. Where are your citations, first of all? And what is your main point of this factoid? That GMOs are bad and thus therefore be labeled coercively by the state?
The current GMO products sold by the big ag companies such as Monsanto, Dupont Pioneer, Syngenta, Dow (Yes, there are others besides the big bad Monsatan you all love to turn into a corporate pinata) mostly are in high demand because their consumer, the FARMER (odd concept, you don’t hear many of them complaining about GMOs) love the technology. You the consumer benefit in the form of cheaper food goods at the grocery store, because GMOs DRASTICALLY reduce the amount of toxic, carcinogenic pesticides and herbicides applied throughout the duration of the crop, which lowers input costs for the farmer (chemicals, manual labor). This is a good thing, both for your wallet, and the environment. I for one would rather have a safe, “natural,” protein which the plant produces on its own to defend itself, such as Bt, which kills a targeted class of insects (lepedoptera) rather than carcinogenic pesticides which leak into our ground water. Additionally, the round-up ready system allows for one, non-toxic herbicide (round up) to be sprayed instead of more harmful ones such as 2-4-D, atrazine, etc, which have extremely long half-lives in our soil. GMOs create “super weeds” at no higher frequency than do normal cropping systems. It’s simply evolution and selection at work. If you put a high enough selection pressure on a crop, eventually you will select for mutations which give the weed an advatange…it’s a constant arms race.
Main point: the article above cites a scientific study which shows that THOUSANDS of PEER-REVIEWED studies show that GMOS are safe. There is no point in putting an unnecessary bio-hazard on a food product which is totally safe and will scare off the average, dumb non-informed fat american at the grocery store.
The few cases where farmers have been sued by biotech companies such as monsanto or pioneer involved a farmer who had illegally propagated and selected for plants which he knew had transgenes without signing an agreement…an entire field of GMO crops does not arise accidentally.
There are regulations put into place to ensure that any farmer who plants GM crops must be at least 660 feet from any other field to avoid cross-pollination with their crop. That being said, a few stray pollen grains could easily be carried by wind and pollinate a few seeds. That is perfectly okay, and perfectly safe, and if that farmer kept his seed the following year and a few turned up to have the trait, the company will never sue the farmer. Only if the farmer has illegally violated the terms of their agreement by propagating their technology without paying for the royalties (over the course of an entire field) would agribusiness sue…and they have…they have patents on those genetic constructs. Without the patents, there would be no incentive to make progress if you can’t profit off it; a competing company could just steal your genetics. It’s no different than Apple suing Samsung over the rectangle shape of their smartphones, and sadly, that’s how capitalism works in this country currently.
So you are saying that there is no other scientific evidence to back up the claims of the anti-GMO people? Ultimately, you are saying that the ones who fear GMO’s have no scientific proof.
Well, you would be very wrong in assuming that. Follow the cases of GMO testing on animals and include the idea that we haven’t had the time to find out what the consequences are yet—and let’s also not forget that GMO’s are illegal or labeled on foods in every country except the United States.
I applaud your effort and I understand your motive, but you are calling a game before the first half is even over. I would recommend getting to know both sides a bit more before making a stand, one way or the other.
Terrible article and I can’t believe I’m reading this on a libertarian blog. when one of the main root principles is you have the right to your own body.
Except the farmers all around the world that killed themselves when companies like syngenta and monsanto forced their way into the government and crops of the people. I bet those farmers didn’t love them.
The reason for labelling GMOs is obvious: They appear to look like regular food, so just as pills that look like candy come in bottles loaded with warnings we need labels to let people know they’re eating food that is significantly different than what humankind is used to. The way GMOs interfere with gene expression is worrying.
Im sure there will be some denial to this as well.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/genetically-modified-foods-toxins-and-reproductive-failures/
Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures
Rhetoric from Washington since the early 1990s proclaims that
genetically modified (GM) foods are no different from their natural
counterparts that have existed for centuries. But this is a political,
not a scientific assertion. Numerous scientists at the FDA consistently
described these newly introduced gene-spliced foods as cause for
concern. In addition to their potential to produce hard-to-detect
allergies and nutritional problems, the scientists said that “The
possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered
plants” might produce “unexpected high concentrations of plant
toxicants.”[1]
GM crops, they said, might have “Increased levels of known naturally
occurring toxins, . . . appearance of new, not previously identified”
toxins, and an increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the
environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals.” They recommended
testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace.”[2]
But the FDA was under orders from the first Bush White House to
promote the biotechnology industry, and the political appointee in
charge of agency policy was Monsanto’s former attorney—later their vice
president. The FDA policy ignored the scientists’ warnings and allowed
GM food crops onto the market without any required safety studies.
From the few safety tests that have been conducted, the results are
disturbing—lab animals fed GM diets show damage to virtually every
system studied. Reports from farmers are even less encouraging—thousands
of sick, sterile and dead animals are traced to GM feed.[3]
GM diet shows toxic reactions in digestive tract
The very first crop submitted to the FDA’s voluntary consultation
process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20
female rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.[4]
The director of FDA’s Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the
tomatoes did not demonstrate a “reasonable certainty of no harm,”[5] which is their normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that “unresolved questions still remain.”[6] The political appointees, however, did not require that the tomato be withdrawn.[*]
According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world’s leading experts
in GM food safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the
tomatoes “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots].”[7]
Pusztai believes that the digestive tract should be the first target
of GM food risk assessment, because the gut is the first (and largest)
point of contact with the foods; it can reveal various reactions to
toxins. He was upset, however, that the research on the FlavrSavr never
looked passed the stomach to the intestines. Other studies that did look
found problems.
Mice
were fed potatoes with an added bacterial gene, which produced an
insecticide called Bt-toxin. Scientists analyzed the lower part of their
small intestines (ileum) and found abnormal and damaged cells, as well
as proliferative cell growth.[8]
Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce a different type of
insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also showed
proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls (see
photo – click here for larger image).[9]
Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined for cell
growth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly resulting
from such growth.[10] Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer and is of special concern.
GM diets cause liver damage
The state of the liver—a main detoxifier for the body—is another indicator of toxins.
Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partially atrophied livers.[11]
Rats fed Monsanto’s Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin, had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity.[12]
Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as well as higher metabolic activity.[13]
The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%-16% heavier, possibly due to liver disease or inflammation.[14]
And microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready
soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional
changes.[15]
Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to
non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings,
according to molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, “are not random
and must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.” Antoniou,
who does human gene therapy research in King’s College London, said
that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not
known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia.”[16]
Higher death rates and organ damage
Some studies showed higher death rates in GM-fed animals. In the FlavrSavr tomato study, for example, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of 40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced.[17] In another study, chickens fed the herbicide tolerant “Liberty Link” corn died at twice the rate of those fed natural corn.[18] But in these two industry-funded studies, the deaths were dismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up.
In addition, the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy
had profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes;[19] in rats fed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged.[20]
In various analyses of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions,
toxicity, altered enzyme production or inflammation. Enzyme production
in the hearts of mice was altered by GM soy.[21] And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats.[22]
Reproductive failures and infant mortality
In
both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showed
dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink
(see photo – click here for larger image).[23] In mice, young sperm cells were altered.[24]
Embryos of GM soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA
function, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.[25]
More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the
Russian National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy,
starting two weeks before they were mated.
Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring
from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10
percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.
“High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from mothers fed the GM soy flour.”[26]
The average size and weight of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.[27]
In a preliminary study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.[28]
After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the
Russian laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all
the rats housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed
controls were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up
studies were canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however,
the infant mortality rate of rats throughout the facility had
skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99 of 179).[29]
Farmers report livestock sterility and deaths
About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had
reproductive problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were
sterile, had false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some
cows and bulls also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by
farmers in the deaths of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [30]
When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton
plants, within 5-7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an
estimated 10,000 sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported
in 2007. Post mortems on the sheep showed severe irritation and black
patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts).
Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the
sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]
Dangerous denial
The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we
were not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal
memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed
to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not
aware of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different.
This statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts
the scientific consensus at the FDA.
Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods
shows adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know
about these problems either—the biotech industry works overtime to try
to hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither
peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them
available. And adverse findings by independent scientists are often
suppressed, ignored, or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover
problems from GM foods have been fired, stripped of responsibilities,
deprived of tenure, and even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the
same safe food we have always eaten continues to circulate.
With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction
in 1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the
deterioration of health in the United States. Without human clinical
trials or post-marketing surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening
health statistic may be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to
wait until we find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet
immediately. Fortunately, more and more people are making healthy non-GM
choices for themselves and their family. To learn which foods are
genetically modified and how to protect yourself, visit the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
[*]
Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using the
same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety
that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required
by the FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated
variety. The FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After
the FlavrSavr, no other biotech company has submitted such detailed
data to the FDA. And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.
[1]
Edwin J. Mathews, Ph.D., in a memorandum to the Toxicology Section of
the Biotechnology Working Group. Subject: Analysis of the Major Plant
Toxicants. Dated October 28, 1991.
[2]
Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants
Chemistry, “Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically
Modified Foods: Supplemental Information,” November 1, 1991, http://www.biointegrity.org
[3] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[4]
Department of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993.
As quoted in Fred A. Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: .
. . Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From
Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert
Panel’s Report,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993) http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html
[5]
Robert J. Scheuplein, Memo to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and
others, “Response to Calgene Amended Petition,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (October 27, 1993) http://www.biointegrity.org
[6]
Carl B. Johnson to Linda Kahl and others, “Flavr Savr™ Tomato:
Significance of Pending DHEE Question,” Alliance for Bio-Integrity
(December 7, 1993) http://www.biointegrity.org
[7] Arpad Pusztai, “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?” June 2001 Action Bioscience http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html
[8]
Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum
of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,” Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219-233.
[9]
Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing
genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat
small intestine,” Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4.
[10] Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,” Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005).
[11] Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84.
[12]
John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON
863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption
Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[13]
R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V.
Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified
Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006):
193-199.
[14]
Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food
Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the Public Health
Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food produced
from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,” http://www.iher.org.au/
[15]
M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C.
Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and
Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on
Genetically Modified Soybean,” Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180.
[16] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books,Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[17] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73-84.
[18]
S. Leeson, “The Effect of Glufosinate Resistant Corn on Growth of Male
Broiler Chickens,” Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, University
of Guelph, Report No. A56379, July 12, 1996.
[19]
Malatesta, et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Pancreatic Acinar Cells
from Mice Fed on Genetically modified Soybean,” J Anat. 2002 November;
201(5): 409-415; see also M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B.
L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural Analyses of
Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,” Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388.
[20]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84.
[21]
R. Tudisco, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera, D. d’Angelo, M. I. Cutrignelli, V.
Mastellone, V. Terzi, L. Avallone, F. Infascelli, “Genetically Modified
Soya Bean in Rabbit Feeding: Detection of DNA Fragments and Evaluation
of Metabolic Effects by Enzymatic Analysis,” Animal Science 82 (2006): 193-199.
[22]
Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible
health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84.
[23]
Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at
Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12,
2007.
[24] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454.
[25]
Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse
Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7-10, 2006.
[26] I.V.Ermakova, “Genetically Modified Organisms and Biological Risks,” Proceedings of International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC) Davos, Switzerland August 27th – September 1st, 2006: 168-172.
[27]
Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of
weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation.
Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4-9.
[28]
Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at
Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12,
2007.
[29] I.V.Ermakova “GMO: Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform N2 (2006): 3-4.
[30] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007.
[31] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
Grow a food forest and practice permaculture.
Great article. I’m definitely rethinking the anti-GMO premise. We definitely need to think before getting emotional. The free market will root out the bad from the good as it ALWAYS does. We take care of our own and don’t need the government to keep us safe from our own choices. It makes perfect sense. If I want to eat GMO’s even to my own detriment, it’s my own choice and no one else’s.
As a libertarian I’d prefer to see a consumer-based market solution. However I noted here that a labeling law could be seen as protection from fraud, arguably one of the few legitimate functions of a limited government: Unless told otherwise, a consumer should be entitled to assume that “tomatoes” are tomatoes as typically understood and found in nature, with roughly the same nutrition profile, allergenic potential, etc. – See more at: http://www.madisonpaleo.com/2012/10/01/genetic-engineering-is-not-paleo/#sthash.LY1wxYUI.dpuf
Yes my ancestor breed new varieties but they never tried to grow corn with animals genes or salmon with some plant gene. they also didnt try to sue other farmers and certainly there seeeds dont have monopolies
They don’t label GMO tainted products in the U.S…yet.
Non-GMO items are labeled, just buy them. They also don’t label products tainted by non-organic fertilizer (poisons). Or non-halal food (haram!)…
This is one of the most ill-informed, poorly written and argued articles I have ever seen on this website. GMOs came about through highly anti-libertarian policies at the FDA and USDA in the 40s-60s, which destroyed the small farm base and did all sorts of other things, they are highly subsidized throughout their history, allowing them to gain such control… they increase pesticide usage… again, this article is really ill-informed, poor, and discouraging to see something so sloppy posted on a site I generally enjoy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesticides-gmo-monsanto-roundup-resistance_n_1936598.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/09/198051447/as-biotech-seed-falters-insecticide-use-surges-in-corn-belt
But in a just-released paper published in the peer-reviewed Environmental Sciences Europe,
Chuck Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University’s
Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, shreds that
claim. He found that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready technology, which
dominates corn, soy, and cotton farming, has called forth a veritable
monsoon of herbicides, both in terms of higher application rates for
Roundup, and, in recent years, growing use of other, more-toxic
herbicides.
Benbrook found that
overall, GMO technology drove up herbicide use by 527 million pounds, or
about 11 percent, between 1996 (when Roundup Ready crops first hit
farm fields) and 2011. But it gets worse. For several years, the
Roundup Ready trait actually did meet Monsanto’s promise of decreasing
overall herbicide use—herbicide use dropped by about 2 percent between
1996 and 1999, Benbrook told me in an interview. But then weeds started
to develop resistance to Roundup, pushing farmers to apply higher
per-acre rates. In 2002, farmers using Roundup Ready soybeans jacked up
their Roundup application rates by 21 percent, triggering a 19 million
pound overall increase in Roundup use.
Since then, an herbicide gusher has been uncorked. By 2011, farms
using Roundup Ready seeds were using 24 percent more herbicide than
non-GMO farms planting the same crops, Benbrook told me. What happened?
By that time, “in all three crops [corn, soy, and cotton], resistant
weeds had fully kicked in,” Benbrook said, and farmers were responding
both by ramping up use of Roundup and resorting to older, more toxic
herbicides like 2,4-D.
***For those who want some citations. But GMOs are also based on the same failed paradigm that has created antibiotic resistance… we are now getting super weeds and super bugs that resist, and farmers are going back to the even worse chemicals, etc. which are a fundamental violation of private property rights, as now I have to filter the drinking water on my farm because my neighbors use these chemicals to raise their crops even though there is zero need.
But please don’t patronize me as a liberty person for thinking that my private property means I shouldn’t have non-transgenic DNA in the crops I raise and non-pesticide contaminated water…
“How feasible is freedom really if we need a state just to food manufacturers from poisoning us?”
This question makes no sense at all. The rest of the article is questionable at best.
And you have the responsibility to take care of it. Buy non-GMO foods.
It was a typo. “How feasible is freedom really if we need a state just to [keep] food manufacturers from poisoning us?” If you couldn’t figure that out on your own, I don’t trust your judgement about the article.
Farmers don’t love this tech. They have no choice but to accept it.
And these techs don’t work, see my other links but also this,
Even the big ag publications have no choice but to cover it, http://farmindustrynews.com/herbicides/glyphosate-resistant-weed-problem-extends-more-species-more-farms
The area of U.S. cropland infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds has expanded to 61.2 million acres in 2012, according to a survey conducted by Stratus Agri-Marketing. Nearly half of all U.S. farmers interviewed reported that glyphosate-resistant weeds were present on their farm in 2012, up from 34% of farmers in 2011. The survey also indicates that the rate at which glyphosate-resistant weeds are spreading is gaining momentum; increasing 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012.
Nearly half (49%) of all U.S. farmers interviewed reported that glyphosate-resistant weeds were present on their farm in 2012, up from 34% of farmers in 2011. The survey also indicates that the rate at which glyphosate-resistant weeds are spreading is gaining momentum, increasing 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012.
Just like antibiotic overuse and resistance.
We need a STATE just to keep food manufacturers from poisoning us?? Still makes no sense. Words matter.
The article is as poorly researched as this sentence is worded.
There is plenty of research contrary to the author’s POV.
I will give Mr. Flynn this much – he did come up with a very provocative title.
Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense. State in this context refers to a government in a more general sense. It isn’t referring to a State as a member of the the United States. If you haven’t heard it used that way before, I can understand the confusion, but that still doesn’t bode well for your credibility.
You may be right about the author’s lack of research. I don’t know. I have not done much research on this topic myself, but I can say if your reading comprehension skills are consistent, you may have misinterpreted your sources.
“I have not done much research on this topic myself,”
Obviously.
My credibility is not in question. I am not the author of this article. The writing quality here speaks for itself.
My lack of research is obvious only because I made it so. I have made no claims one way or another on the subject matter of this article. Your pitiful attempt to satisfy the feeling of utter inadequacy that I have clearly inspired in you only shows you to be worthy of that feeling.
Your credibility is in question because I questioned it. You can’t simply state that it isn’t to make it true.
If the writing quality here speaks for itself, then I can’t help but wonder why you took the time to point it out.
Take a deep breath and try not to punch your monitor. Even trolls as sophisticated as myself aren’t worth the pain.
The residents on the west side of Kaua’i are being poisoned to death by pesticides sprayed on gmo crop fields that border right alongside homes and schools. Men women and children are developing cancer at an alarming rate, birth defects are 10x the average there, kids are having seizures and dying.. It is horrific. Try telling them that gmos are a good thing.
Its not about force its about awareness. When people dont even know what GMOs are and cant decide because products are deliberately mislabeled then that is a problem. Avoiding GMOs as you say is not so easy these days because it permeates almost every food ingredient in the industry. Also knowing how Monsanto, the father of GMOs, harasses and destroys farmers who simply do not use their seeds and products is much more absurd than people simply asking for GMOs to be labeled.
Articles like this are why people will continue to ignore and shun libertarians and box all of us with the extremist ayn rand nut jobs.
If you google suicides in India, you will quickly learn the truth. There is no correlation between GMO foods and farmer suicides. The Hindu Religion does not condemn suicide, and farmer suicides (like urban suicides, India also has plenty of those) is due to many factors, including shame because a spouse ran up a lot of debt, failure to advance in career, etc.
The Precautionary Principle you advocate is incompatible with freedom. If we waited decades for every new innovation the tremendous leap of scientific and medical knowledge we have would count for nothing. Organic foods, BTW, are produced from seeds that are bathed in chemicals and radiation in order to produce new strains. Are you saying that careful genetic splicing is more dangerous than this common practice?
Gene jumping is common in nature. Different species regularly share genes. In fact, the “salmon” gene you refer to was actually not put into a plant, but the fish is a deeper water cousin of the salmon, and it was spliced into farm raised salmon so they could keep their environment colder.
What evidence do you have that Monsanto or anyone else harasses non GMO farmers? My how the internet spreads rumors that aren’t true. Monsanto requires a signed contract, voluntarily (in a libertarian fashion) signed by farmers who expect certain benefits for the use of the seeds. If the farmers violate the contract, or if non contractual farmers use the seeds, then they are investigated and possibly sued.
Actually, this is another lie spread by the anti GMO crowd. There is no evidence of greater cancer in Kauai or anywhere else in Hawaii.
I believe he left out “just to KEEP food manufacturers “
All tomatoes are genetically modified, even organic tomatoes. There is no general “state of nature” for tomatoes. It just depends on how they are genetically modified. Food seeds, even organic, if they are not modified by genetic splicing, are modified by chemical baths and radiation exposure. That is a much more random method. In nature, genetic modification occurs by solar radiation, iow, completely random. Why is genetic splicing demonized over these other methods?
But I researched it and found articles stating the opposite! How am I supposed to know which is true?
Your research conflicts with data I have examined and is lacking citations. You might search a bit further. Here’s a link to a couple of quick videos in layman’s terms that might intrigue you. Consider searching scholarly papers proving the safety, efficacy and increased yields of GMOs. It might prove more challenging than you expect.
http://search4beauty.blogspot.com/2011/10/wall-street-food-industry-analyst-on.html
What’s extremist about Rand? We see events unfolding in this country (and others) in an eerie parallel to her writings, not to mention those of Orwell.
A lot of the arguing happening below, of which I could stomach, didn’t really seem to take into account the fact that advanced processes that create GMOs create problems for individual farmers and ranchers in patent law. A farmer accidentally plants a patented seed, and all of a sudden he/she gets sued for patent violation, and the ag corps come after his/her land.
Do you have any proof for the above specious claim? Because I am an organic farmer and my seeds are neither bathed in chemicals nor irradiated… um, if you didn’t know, irradiation generally kills seeds making them not sprout/grow – hence why it renders food shelf stable by sanitizing it.
Got to love crazy unsubstantiated claims made on the internet, though!