GM Seeds and the Militarization of Food - and Everything Else

robert l. bentham

Active Member
Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
863
Jon Letman for Truthout: The Hawaiian Islands are one of the most heavily militarized places on the planet. They're also an epicenter for GMOs. Can you talk about the connection between military and GMO testing in these islands?
Dr. Vandana Shiva: War and agriculture came together when the chemicals that were produced for chemical warfare lost their markets in war, and the industry organized itself to sell those chemicals as agrochemicals. Then, when gene splicing was worked out as a technique in public systems, the corporations realized here was something that would work wonderfully for them. Not only would they get to sell more chemicals, but now, by genetically modifying seed, they could for the first time say, "We are creators and inventors of plants," and redefine seed as an invention covered by patents and therefore collect rents and royalty. If every farmer, every year has to buy seed - which is the main reason for pushing GMOS - it's huge profits.
The techniques themselves are militarized, come from war, including the fact that the only way you can move a gene that doesn't belong to an organism and you have to cross the species barrier - which can't be crossed by reproduction - you can only do it by using a gene gun, which is war at the genetic level, or infecting a plant with cancer, which is biological warfare. So the war mentality is at the heart of the technology.
And then the industry that grew powerful and rich through wars (Monsanto andDow Chemical both manufactured Agent Orange) is its final step of the militarized mindset, the militarized world coming together, is that imposing these toxins, the GMOs - an agriculture that nobody wants, food that nobody wants - can only go the next step by an absolute militarized society, where police states are created to police farmers.
JL: So military testing and GMO testing in Hawaii is . . .
VS: . . . is a continuum. It’s a continuum in terms of the personalities involved; it’s a continuum in the world view involved; and it’s a continuum in the implications.
JL: In Hawaii, what vulnerabilities, unknown or under-known, do you think the biotech companies and military have?
VS: I think the first vulnerability the seed companies and military have is they've violated every natural law. I became a physicist because I really believe the laws of nature are how we should live. The laws of nature I studied were the laws of quantum theory; the laws of ecology are laws of nature. Every violation of the laws of nature is a violation. Therefore the more we can point this out, the more people realize this is illegal from the perspective of nature, it's illegal from the measure of people. I really do believe the vulnerability comes from the fact that the [GMO] industry and the military have set their own rules as if there was no higher law. That is their vulnerability.



http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/1...vsearth-planted-by-military-industrial-forces
 
Taking the Libertarian stance here. GMO should be marked clearly on the package. If people don't want it then they can avoid it more easily. Similar to my stance on European horse meat. I don't care if it's horse meat as long as it's not mislabeled. That way those that don't want to buy horse meat don't have to. And conversely those that like the flavor can find it more easily.
 
I agree. The problem I is that in the US they aren't labeled.
I feel like someone is trying to pulling a fast one
 
Personally I think we'd be better off with all products with GMO labeled as such. As it is GMO products are a bit mysterious as they lurk out there and cause a long list of unspecified problems to those who eat them. But once they're all labeled people will see that they're in pretty much everything and people will instantly realize that the associated health scare is just that; a scare pushed by a bunch of crazy people who know shit.
 
Personally I think we'd be better off with all products with GMO labeled as such. As it is GMO products are a bit mysterious as they lurk out there and cause a long list of unspecified problems to those who eat them. But once they're all labeled people will see that they're in pretty much everything and people will instantly realize that the associated health scare is just that; a scare pushed by a bunch of crazy people who know shit.

Speak for yourself. Why don't you just cut out the middleman and drink Round Up like it was soda-pop?

BTW, it is in almost everything in the US. The world is not the US. Many countries have banned GMO or have strict laws against GMO.
 
well we could start with the cancer related issues associated with pesticides and the wonder products they service but we'd end up debating whether the science is any good... ;) and i'd almost rather talk about lindsey lohan than do that again...
 
And what happened to our health?
Health is the least of it. What happened to food freedom. What happened to being able to choose food that isn't GMO. What happened to being able to grow food without having to get a license from Monsanto even if you aren't growing a Monsanto crop? What happened to the little farmer? (getting squeezed and sued out of business is what). What happened to the advantages of GMO crops to produce more yield with less input? Super weeds are here - herbicide usage has had to increase and Monsanto owns everybody. The problem isn't science per se, it's business using law to monopolize. Label the GMOs and let them stand or fall on consumer demand because that's what a free market is all about. Hiding what's what means the market can't work.
 
Why don't you tell me?

Your eyes are closed. I have been posting about the dangers of GMO for how many years now? Oh well, here's a random one for you.

Russia suspends import and use of American GM corn after study revealed cancer risk

Historically, biotech companies have proved the safety of GM crops based on trials involving feeding rats for a period of 90 days.

However, experts at the University of Caen conducted an experiment running for the full lives of rats - two years.

The findings, which were peer reviewed by independent experts before being published in a respected scientific journal, found raised levels of breast cancer, liver and kidney damage.
The same trials also found evidence that consumption of minuscule amounts of a commonly used weedkiller, Roundup, was associated with a raised risk of cancer.
Both the GM corn, which carries the name NK603, and Roundup are the creation of US biotech company Monsanto.
The decision by the Russians to suspend authorisation for the American GM corn threatens to trigger a transatlantic commercial and diplomatic row.
Russia’s consumer rights watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, said today that it has suspended the import and use of the Monsanto GM corn.
Rospotrebnadzor said the country’s Institute of Nutrition has been asked to assess the validity of the study.
It has also contacted the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health & Consumers to ask for the EU’s position on the corn’s safety.
Consumer scepticism in the UK and Europe means GM corn is not on supermarket shelves here, however it is fed to farm animals, including hens, pigs and dairy cows.
Pretty bad when the Russians get it right and the US is getting it so damn wrong:fail:
 
It seems we have a couple of related ideas being lumped in with GMOs. GMOs are Genetically Modified Organisms. Round up is a chemical pesticide not a GMO.
 
It seems we have a couple of related ideas being lumped in with GMOs. GMOs are Genetically Modified Organisms. Round up is a chemical pesticide not a GMO.

well that's actually a yes and a no... you get them both... and truthfully you get much worse than that when you look at big pharmas ties to big ag... you get to lookin at all the hormones in your livestock products and you soon realize gmo isn't what you necessarily think it is... and i know what the technical definitions are.. i get all that... but thats not realistic....
 
It seems we have a couple of related ideas being lumped in with GMOs. GMOs are Genetically Modified Organisms. Round up is a chemical pesticide not a GMO.
It wasn't us that lumped them together but it IS a problem.

So here we have this whole new hopeful technology which we can try to use to bring hardiness and greater food value into our crops. We allow patents (a ridiculous idea to allow someone to patent something that copies itself!!) so that companies can enforce ownership of genes for the purpose of incentivizing them to create things that benefit the common good and what do we get?

Well, we have a company that makes a weed killer who decides to make a crop that resists that weed killer so they can sell more weed killer AND prosecute the hell out of anyone not having a license to grow their gene. The crop is rushed out to market as "substantially the same" as the unmodified crop and here we are - throwing increasing amounts of Glyphosate onto increasingly resistant weeds and accumulating glyphosate and whatever metabolites of glyphosate into food crops with decreasing yields! And mono-cropping but worse than that - forcing farmers to destroy heirloom strains that have become contaminated. Monsantos goal is to own the food supply. Why would they do such a Dr. Evil kind of thing? It's just business - profit is the motive, monopoly is the ultimate destination.

It's got almost nothing to do with whether inserting some gene into some organism is science or not - it's moved past science and now it's technology and business and law and because of the amounts of money being made and the complete lack of ethics and/or naivete of certain powerful people it has escaped the people's ability to control it. You take a technology that is a great tool for exploration in the hands of a prudent scientist and give it to someone who may know precious little science (or may even believe the earth is 6000 years old) but who knows how to use lawyers and politicians to make money. It's like giving dynamite to a guy with a rubble fetish.
 
@Fluffy,
A lot of what you describe is not necessarily a GMO problem but as much as it's an economic problem. GMO is a technology that feeds into what you describe as a bad economic and patent system.

GMO's aren't necessarily bad. Increasing cold tolerance helps expand the range where crops can be grown. Drought tolerance helps areas of the world that are dry and short on water be more self sufficient. And as climate change, changes the world provides flexibility to aid in sustaining societies through the change. Some other plants have been made to absorb higher quantities of heavy metals. This helps improve soil conditions and water conditions so food crops can be grown without absorbing those heavy metals and feeding them to their kids. Increasing vitamins in other plants allow people to grow those plants and provide better nourishment in low food quality areas of the world.

IMO each GMO needs to sustain the unique analysis and testing to verify the ideas work and reduces harm to humans and the environment.

....
With any technology there are trade offs. Rocket engines are awesome! They are good as they get us outside the solar system. They launch earth satellites which improve communications along with providing some of the best data and predictability for weather events in the history of the planet. Rocket engines are awesome! Awesomely bad as they make missiles and ICBMs a reality. We have the one of the least amount of work, push a couple of buttons, to kill someone (drones) or large masses of people (nukes).

Let's not be the European luddite whitewashing GMOs as all bad. Instead take a realistic and analytical approach and use those which aid and improve the human condition.
 
I'm with Faethor. I distinguish between GMOs and Monsanto.
 
@Fluffy,
A lot of what you describe is not necessarily a GMO problem but as much as it's an economic problem. GMO is a technology that feeds into what you describe as a bad economic and patent system.

That's exactly what I just said - but you can't separate them. Fire is just a chemical reaction; when it's in your furnace it's good: when it's on your sofa it's bad. You can remain in your living room and say that fire itself isn't really the problem but more the configuration of the fuel but the debate is not particularly useful in the moment.

The system was set up the way it was by powerful interests to enhance their power (money being a good indicator of power). The likely result is the production of dodgy GMOs for less than the best reasons. Until the system changes GMOs will be made to boost bottom lines and grow market share. Concern for human health will take a back seat. Powerful companies will protect themselves from lawsuits by buying legislation and that's pretty much where we are today.
Monsanto is so dominant in the GMO market place it isn't even unfair to equate GMOs with Monsanto. Any attempt to change the regulatory structure to be more pro-social is a de-facto attack on Monsanto's power.
 
Back
Top