GMO: Evil Empire or World’s Saviour?
A devoted New Yorker reader, I was quite chagrined when Monsanto began peddling its supposed commitment to sustainability in my favorite news magazine last year. Was anyone else struck by the irony that this paragon of journalistc excellence–very same outfit that publishes Elizabeth Kolbert’s trenchant and meticulously researched pieces–would also print greenwashing of the highest order?
To say I’m not a big fan of Monsanto and it’s “Roundup Ready” line of genetically modified seeds is putting it mildly. To my mind ongoing “questions” about genetically modified crops–Are they safe? Do they produce more? Are they environmentally-friendly? Are they the solution to world hunger?–have been definitively answered in the negative. No: GMO is not safe, does not produce more, is not environmentally friendly and is not the solution to world hunger.
Consider the following:
- In a literature review of two dozen academic studies of GMO published last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that genetically modified crops have not increased yields.
- The introduction of Monsanto’s “Round Up Ready” GM seeds have increased the application of the pesticide Round Up (glyphosate). It is estimated that application has risen 1500% since GM seeds were first introduced in 1994.
- Recent research–which was shoved under the rug by the USDA–indicates that glyphosate is not nearly as benign as Monsanto has claimed it to be. For example: overuse of Round Up has created superweeds that are resistant to glyphosate. Industrial agriculture in the south has been particularly hard hit by this problem.
And yet… just two weeks ago The National Research Council issued a report that concludes that GM crops have provided “substantial environmental and economic benefits to farmers.” Although the report cautions that overuse (!) of the technology threatens to erode gains, it is largely positive on GM.
And yet… credible cases continue to be made, by those not beholden to Big Ag, for the future role of GM in addressing the problem of world hunger and creating a sustainable agricultural system. In Tomorrow’s Table, Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak, a plant scientist and an organic farmer, argue that “if responsibly managed,” genetically modified crops will “allow much of the world’s hungry to be fed from land already degraded by the plow’s slice and the tractor’s compressing wheel.”
Of course, “if responsibly managed” is a big caveat. But how do you square the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists with the report by the National Research Council? If it isn’t just to come down to polemics and shouting matches then the answer has to be: more research.
Although we can’t put the genie back in the bottle and let it out again only if and when its shown to be safe and effective, we can ask our government to exercise a little more precautionary oversight so that our health and environment aren’t sacrificed for the sake of corporate profits. Here’s a place to start: tell the Obama administration that you want clear food labeling that make it easy for consumers to avoid GMO.
Facebook comments:
1 Comment
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
The GMO question is intriguing as there are 2 sides to every story. However, it is hard to believe anything Monsanto says.
Comment by Steve — April 30, 2010 @ 7:32 am