GMOs aren't solving world hunger

[FluffyMcDeath]

World hunger is mostly a political problem - controlling food is, after all, a way to control people.

But it's not just that. GMOs just don't seem to be producing as advertised. I've had my own long standing feeling about the industry and my deepest skepticism usually revolves around the fact that people are just not that smart - not smart enough to "design" life. Living things are generally such a mess as systems that the only way to develop them is to let them evolve or to guide their evolution. Sticking a gene into something might sound like a good idea to a simple engineer but it will have ripple effects that are incalculable and that's simply because there are too many variables and too many unknowns and too much uncertainty in the "knowns".

The second major source of my skepticism is that since adding a gene to an organism by engineering is such a large and expensive enterprise for humans the effort invested leads you to believe that the result is more valuable than it actually is and that, having invested so much to make the new organism and having exclusive rights to market the new organism, claims will be exaggerated and it will replace "free" or public domain organisms which have no legal protection.

 

[Glaucus]

No of course people aren't smart enough to design life. Instead, they'll do what nature has done for centuries: try a bunch of different things and keep only the ones that succeed. Things will still evolve, just in a different way.

But you're right, there are dangers. One example is the blood disorder known as Thallasemia which is common in Mediterranean areas. It can cause some serious problems, primarily birth defects and couples need to be screened to make sure both parents aren't carriers. Through genetic engineering we could wipe out that gene in humans, but there's a downside. People with thallasemia are immune to malaria - which is also common in the area. In times of malaria outbreaks, having thallasemia is a blessing. So ya, there are dangers, no question about it.

But we have some of the same dangers even today. By just relying on old fashion genetics of mating animals with desirable genes we've created herds and flocks of cows and chickens that are nearly identical. One highly contagious pathogen could easily wipe out entire herds or flocks - which is why modern agriculture relies so heavily on modern medicine. Conceivably, GMO livestock could make that situation better, without the need for adding antibiotics to feed.

But that's the GMO part of the equation, the other part of this thread is world hunger. One thing that worries me is that simply making crops more efficient may just increase the world population. But not necessarily. If we can get crops growing in places that can't be grown easily, it may end up making certain places more self sufficient. Much of the poverty in Africa is because they simply have no agriculture at all, or they can only grow certain crops. GMO might be a game changer there, and making places more self sufficient may in fact lower the population in the long run. They'll need more than food, but food is the critical first step.

I do agree with what you say about legal protection for GMO foods. This isn't a technology problem, but a legal problem and that's how it should be addressed. Instead of private companies who wish to patent the hell out of their "inventions", this needs to be a world wide effort sponsored by governments and the UN - exclusively. Share holders should not be setting world hunger policy.

 

[redrumloa]

GMOs are designed to kill people. Why do you think Monsanto bans GMO's in their own corporate cafeteria?

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

GMOs are designed to kill people. Why do you think Monsanto bans GMO's in their own corporate cafeteria?

I think you're a bit over-dramatic there, Red. I don't see a reasonable force of interest in that.

 

[redrumloa]

I think you're a bit over-dramatic there, Red. I don't see a reasonable force of interest in that.

I wish I was being overly dramatic, but even Monsanto does not eat their own dog food. The elites who push GMOs on the masses such as Bill Gates refuse to touch the stuff, instead traveling with GMO free organic food anywhere he goes.

You can argue if it is purely greed or if indeed there are nefarious intentions. Neither explanation justifies what is going on. It is looking less like greed and more like a naked attempt to cull the population.

 

[redrumloa]

"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .

The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia. . . . If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this: except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilized. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. . . .

Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."

- Bertrand Russell 1953

 

[Glaucus]

Thanks Red, that was fun to read. It's always entertaining to see predictions of the future from the past, and how horribly wrong they often are. Still waiting for the flying cars, that would be sweat!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

No of course people aren't smart enough to design life. Instead, they'll do what nature has done for centuries: try a bunch of different things and keep only the ones that succeed. Things will still evolve, just in a different way.

You'd hope, and even if it were a science instead of a business it probably wouldn't work out that way because of the enormous effort involved with each attempt.

The way it generally works is a bunch of ideas are thrown around, some of them get picked and funded, of those some get dropped but the ones that management have decided have the best returns and are near term enough get hammered on whether or not that are a good idea until something like the marketroid bullet points is achieved at which point (if the company has enough money) the "product" gets approved by the regulators and the sales people push it like they'd push anything - "good" is measured in orders.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Thanks Red, that was fun to read. It's always entertaining to see predictions of the future from the past, and how horribly wrong they often are.

Were you referring specifically to what red quoted above? Because if you were the above was written speculatively about what the Nazis would have done had they not been defeated. As such it is completely speculative rather than predictive.

 

[metalman]

But it's not just that. GMOs just don't seem to be producing as advertised.

GMO crops are not planted because they increase yields, they're planted because they reduce the cost of producing the crop and reduce the risk of no crop.

 

[metalman]

Thanks Red, that was fun to read. It's always entertaining to see predictions of the future from the past, and how horribly wrong they often are. Still waiting for the flying cars, that would be sweat!

Gradually, by selective breeding ... all those ideal women would look like ....

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

GMO crops are not planted because they increase yields, they're planted because they reduce the cost of producing the crop and reduce the risk of no crop.

They don't do the latter and they are starting not to do the former. The only thing they really do is cost more to buy but prevent you from being sued by the seed company for infringing on patents.

 

[metalman]

The only thing they really do is cost more to buy but prevent you from being sued by the seed company for infringing on patents.

There is more to the cost of raising a crop then the cost of the seed, hence why GMO seeds have become the predominate type of seeds planted.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

There is more to the cost of raising a crop then the cost of the seed, hence why GMO seeds have become the predominate type of seeds planted.

There is more to their dominance than their performance - there is the sales force, and the bullying and law suits of Monsanto. Farmers who fail to keep their crops free of Monsanto blown pollen end up being forced to destroy seed lines they've cultivated for generations and are forced to license Monsanto seeds in self defense.

 

[metalman]

Farmers who fail to keep their crops free of Monsanto blown pollen end up being forced to destroy seed lines they've cultivated for generations and are forced to license Monsanto seeds in self defense.

Luddite propaganda

Corn is one of the most easily cross pollinated field crops, and university field tests have shown at a distance of 150ft there is only a 0.23% to 0.75% chance of cross pollination between varieties. The number of out-crosses is reduced in half at a distance of 12 feet from a pollen source, and at a distance of 40 to 50 feet, the number of out-crosses is reduced by 99%.

Crops where the seeds are replanted are much harder to cross pollinate. For example two varieties of soybeans planted in rows 15.2cm apart in university tests only have a 1.8% chance of cross-pollination

 

[redrumloa]

I'm with Fluffy here, odd as that is.

 

[robert l. bentham]

Luddite propaganda

Corn is one of the most easily cross pollinated field crops, and university field tests have shown at a distance of 150ft there is only a 0.23% to 0.75% chance of cross pollination between varieties. The number of out-crosses is reduced in half at a distance of 12 feet from a pollen source, and at a distance of 40 to 50 feet, the number of out-crosses is reduced by 99%.

Crops where the seeds are replanted are much harder to cross pollinate. For example two varieties of soybeans planted in rows 15.2cm apart in university tests only have a 1.8% chance of cross-pollination

monsanto claims to have sued over 140 farmers based on just what fluffy said... you can go to their website and see for yourself. you might think the claim is asinine and frivolous because of what is actually known about cross pollination, and id agree with that assessment, but its not "propaganda" if its actually happening... my dad doesnt plant wheat anymore because they have bullied people around here into only using their seeds. the hormone mafia is as much responsible for the death of the family farm in america as the unscrupulous banker.

 

[metalman]

monsanto claims to have sued over 140 farmers based on just what fluffy said... you can go to their website and see for yourself. you might think the claim is asinine and frivolous because of what is actually known about cross pollination

The farmers being sued are claiming they ended up with fields of GMO crops because of cross-pollination from neighboring fields of GMO crops ... which is statistically impossible

A coalition of 300 organic farming interests, farmers seed growers and producers, have just lost a legal suit against Monsanto GM seed corporation in which they claim they might be victims of accidental GM contamination of their crops, and thus subject to Monsanto lawsuits.

“It has never been, nor will it be[,] Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in [a] farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”

the notion that plaintiffs, who are actively attempting to avoid the use of transgenic seed, may nevertheless find themselves unknowingly utilizing it in significant quantities strains credulity.

Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ 144 patent-infringement lawsuits filed against farmers between 1997 and April 2010 create a reality of the threat of injury. Plaintiffs, however, overstate the magnitude of defendants’ patent enforcement. This average of roughly thirteen lawsuits per year is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million.

Monsanto alleged that defendants it sued had intentionally saved and replanted second generation seed with patented traits in violation of their licensing agreement)

If it was easy to cross-pollinate these crops, hybrid varieties would be developed, just like it is now done for corn

Now in field trials, GMO Wheat

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I'm with Fluffy here, odd as that is.

I don't know that it's that odd really. We agree on a lot so long as we keep the labels out of the discussion.

BTW, for those with the time and inclination the first documentary red posted the trailer for can be watched in full on line here. (pick one of the embedded versions)

The other one isn't as easily available but the homepage is here.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

The farmers being sued are claiming they ended up with fields of GMO crops because of cross-pollination from neighboring fields of GMO crops ... which is statistically impossible

Let's have a look at what you wrote:

Corn is one of the most easily cross pollinated field crops, and university field tests have shown at a distance of 150ft there is only a 0.23% to 0.75% chance of cross pollination between varieties. The number of out-crosses is reduced in half at a distance of 12 feet from a pollen source, and at a distance of 40 to 50 feet, the number of out-crosses is reduced by 99%.

Isn't that a strange way to present the statistics? Tell you what the rate is at a distance of 150ft and then tell you how fast it drops off from 12ft to 40 ft. Even at a distance of 150ft the rate is between a quarter and three quarter percent. That seems to suggest that at 12 ft it's very much higher and for adjacent plants even higher still.

That means that if a neighbour has a field and you have a field and they have Monsanto corn and you have family corn and you are a seed saver then after the first season with a 150ft separation (what a lot of wasted land) you have 1 in 400 kernels carrying Monsanto genes from the edge of your field. The rate will decrease across your crop. However, the next year, if any of those crossed seeds are in your saved seeds then they will be sitting right in amongst the rest of your crop and you will get a high rate of crossing. The next years crop will be even more heavily crossed and in just a three years you won't be growing corn with just trace contamination, you will be heavily contaminated and there won't be any sign of it. That's why farmers who don't grow Monsanto have to bear the cost
of constant genetic testing - and that won't necessarily catch the problem until after it goes critical.

Crops where the seeds are replanted are much harder to cross pollinate. For example two varieties of soybeans planted in rows 15.2cm apart in university tests only have a 1.8% chance of cross-pollination

The miracle of compound interest will make sure that in a few years a small contamination will turn into a large contamination. Of course it isn't a true exponential function because it begins to saturate, but life replicates. It's how a small infection turns into a big infection. Monsanto understands this but most regular Joe's don't and neither do most judges.