One thought on “Please Submit Testimony To Support Farmers/Ranchers”

1. The GMO debates are so over-heated it’s time to take three (or thirty) deep breaths—and then think hard about what makes sense. Why such intensity about GMOs? Several reasons are common: 1). New technology is always a bit scary; 2). People don’t like “playing God with our food and other life forms” 3). People are nervous about what they put into their body and see modern food as making us sick; 4). People don’t like large corporations controlling the food supply (or they just don’t like Monsanto); and 5). People believe GMO crops increase pesticide use, kill beneficial insects, cause disease in animals, etc.

   New technologies can be scary, but if we ban them because we don’t know what might happen, then how far back do we draw the line on what to use and—under the much touted “precautionary principle”—how do we ever determine when something is acceptable? Do we abandon all new technology and revert to what our grandparents used? Oh wait—that was risky too (lead putty to seal water pipes, cars that were much less safe to drive, medical care that had few therapeutic options). Why not go back then to romantic agrarian Nineteenth Century technologies? Oh wait again, there was widespread starvation and malnutrition, disease, and expected lifespans less than fifty years. The “precautionary principle” is a noble-sounding way to impose one’s particular political or personal worries on others (why should your “unknowns” have more policy credence than my “unknowns,” if they are all un-knowable?). Precautionary principles can impose horrible costs—just ask anyone who needlessly contracted measles because their “precautionary” parents avoided early childhood vaccinations due to unfounded and un-scientific worries. The world constantly challenges us with unknowns, and our best strategy is to use our best scientific thinking to identify how to deal with them—that’s why today we live on average over twice as long as our ancestors and have a much better lifestyle while doing so (enabling us to make countless blog posts, too!).

   Are we playing God and is that objectionable? If there is concern about manipulating life forms, then please join me for a meal of natural corn and completely native tomatoes. We’d starve if we aren’t killed first. Corn is completely an invention of man—natural corn does not exist (other than Teocinte, which can barely feed a small animal), while native tomatoes are full of poisonous alkaloids. Our food supply is a result of thousands of years of continued genetic selection and manipulation—including varieties made from multi-species crosses that would never occur in nature and only happened due to treatment with nasty, carcinogenic chemicals (look up Triticale, which is a darling grain in natural food stores). No one of us can speak for God, but it’s a good bet She gave us brains to figure out how to better and more reliably feed ourselves—and feeding people is a common theme among the world’s religions (and atheists like snacks too!).

   Are we really more sick from diabetes, cancer, metabolic syndrome, autism, neurological diseases, etc. from eating GMO food? How can this be, when incidence of these ailments has been on the rise since the 1950s, and GMO crops were first introduced only in the 1990’s (about the same time as organic food took off—leading some to question whether maybe organics are responsible, if we apply the same level of analytical sophistication as used by GMO opponents)? Despite incorrect assertions that GMO food is introduced without testing, they are in fact the most tested foods on the planet, including short and long-term toxicity tests and multi-generational studies. Contrary to the common narrative, the Biotech industry in fact sought out regulatory approval when these crops were being developed, and Monsanto has been perhaps the most aggressive in requesting extensive testing before introducing new Biotech crops. Again contrary to popular myths, the regulatory agencies (FDA, EPA, USDA) are not “bought” by the corporations. For example, just ask the CEO of any drug, device, food, or Biotech company regulated by the FDA whether the FDA is a “push-over”. The FDA may be process driven and subject to Washington’s political winds, but the agency is staffed with highly trained scientific professionals who take their job seriously. To suggest that they—or any of the other researchers who worked hard to build positions of scientific credibility—are merely bought by corporations is a non-thinking insult.

   Are corporations—and especially Monsanto—controlling our food supply and oppressing our farmers? Well, we certainly have large corporate players in our food supply, and we’ve had them for years. The good news is that the efficiencies brought by these corporations mean Americans spend about 6% of their disposable income on food (a bit higher on Hawaii!) while Europeans spend about double: 10 – 15%. This makes us all wealthier, especially those struggling to get by on low and limited incomes yet who still want to enjoy a broad range of healthy food options year-round. The other good news is that if you don’t want to support large food corporations (ADM, Cargill, Kraft, Monsanto, etc.) there are many other options available among our food choices. As for farmers, the accusation that they are forced to buy GMO seed and are over-charged to the point of bankruptcy simply doesn’t make sense. Think about it: farmers voluntarily sought out GMO corn, soy, and cotton seed—making them perhaps the most successful product introduction in history with over 90% adoption within a few years. This wouldn’t have happened unless farmers gained benefit from these crops—and they did. Fewer sprays were required, costs were reduced, and crop security (and quality) was improved. Seed companies typically take one-third of the value created by new products and let farmers keep the remaining two-thirds—so farmers benefit greatly from Biotech crops (and, farmers want to reduce chemical use as much as anyone: if for no other reason than it costs them money to spray pesticides).

   Finally, despite what is said, Biotech crops are proven to reduce pesticide use. Insect resistant crops (which use the active ingredient of Bt sprays used by organic farmers) reduce insecticide use about 40% and help beneficial insects (think about it: as opposed to mass chemical sprays that kill all insects, only those insects that attack the crop—that is, the pests—are exposed to the insecticidal protein, so beneficial insect populations will of course be better off). Reports that RoundUp Ready crops increase herbicide use ignore replacement of more toxic herbicides by RoundUp—which is a far more environmentally friendly method to control weeds.

   For a thoughtful analysis of benefits from GMO crops, please see this lecture by Mark Lynas, former Greenpeace anti-GMO activist, who studied the science, thought deeply about the issues, and realized that GMO crops are in fact a benefit to humankind and the environment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf86QYf4Suo

Comments are closed.