GMO crops, Monsanto, and the future of world agriculture.

[Dhurn]

First and foremost, I realize this is a highly politicized and controversial topic, if people could keep the vitriol to a minimum that would be fantastic.

I'm doing a research project on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for one of my finals, and I'm curious to see what MMO-C members know about them and what their opinion is. I'm trying to take a balanced approach to my research, examining both sides of the argument and weeding out the conspiracy theorists and those that are in the pocket of agribiz (unfortunately those 2 groups combine for the majority of the internet's readily available info).

For those that don't know, since 1996 a massive agriculture company called Monsanto has sold genetically engineered seeds which are equipped with artificially inserted gene data that allows the crops to produce a toxin Bacillus thuringiensis to kill insect pests. Other strains have also been developed which protect the plant from herbicides (called "RoundupReady"), these allow for broad spectrum herbicide usage to destroy weeds while not harming crops.

For the first decade+ of their use, it appears the crops have been an economic benefit to farmers and consumers alike, but there are valid criticisms of the technology. Adaptation among bug populations to the Bt toxin has recently occurred in many regions, forcing farmers to spray additional insecticide to supplement the seeds which are supposed to deal with the pests independently. Due to the already high price of the seeds, in addition to the cost of extra insecticide, there have been major issues of debt and suicide among farmers, especially in India, and a subsequent ban on the GMO technology in the Maharashtra region. This is not an isolated incident but I am using it as a case study.

http://ens-newswire.com/2012/08/09/m...-seed-license/

The business practices of Monsanto are one of the driving forces behind the anti-GMO movement. Some argue that they are an unjust monopoly with their aggressive patent protection, and clear dominance of the biotech seed market. Monsanto does not allow farmers to use heirloom seeds which contain their technology, and sue successfully anytime they find farmers doing so. They have also absorbed many conventional seed companies, making it difficult for some farmers to acquire seeds that are not genetically modified.

In the U.S., 73% of corn, 80% of cotton, and 93% of soybeans have been converted to GMO variety crops (source: USDA). If you're eating something in America that you didn't grow yourself or buy from a local that you know, it probably has GMOs in it. If it's heavily processed, 100% it has GMOs in it.

Many argue that this technology is the only way to effectively feed the growing population of 7+ billion. Others think that an ecological crisis stemming from the side-effects of the crops is imminent, and in some cases already in progress. The technology has already been banned, or food containing it is labelled by law in over 50 countries. In California, a ballot measure to require labeling of GMOs was defeated on Nov. 6 after a major influx of money from Monsanto ($8.1 mil) and other major food companies (Coke, Pepsi, Kraft, among others).

Thanks for reading, any correction of my information via peer reviewed source is welcome as well. With a topic like this, I'm finding it can be difficult to know what is propaganda and what is fact.


TL;DR - If you know what GMOs are and some of the issues surrounding them, what is your opinion of them?

[Kalyyn]

I say genetically modify everything. Evolution did not create our food with human consumption in mind. We, on the other hand, can bend nature to our liking.

[Deleted]

"Nature finds a way."

In other words, we might catch up but nature always finds a way around it. Resistances? Hah! Insects have so many fast generations.

I know there is a form of seed bank being maintained, where scientists gather and preserve different seeds from all over the world, that may in the future be needed.

[Kraenen]

Kind of strange that monsanto will sue people when their seeds land on someone else's land. What happened to personal responsibility? If you lose those seeds, it's no longer yours. If they blew in the wind you should've taken better care of them. Where are the conservatives who always rant about personal responsibility on this issue?

[Deleted]

I am completely against genomes being patented. I have issues with intellectual property law at the best of times, but I thoroughly disagree with living organisms having some kind of patent.

[Laize]

It's a tough call.

I think Monsanto is doing great work and that GMO crops are amazing when it comes to feeding the world.

[Sunseeker]

Kind of strange that monsanto will sue people when their seeds land on someone else's land. What happened to personal responsibility? If you lose those seeds, it's no longer yours. If they blew in the wind you should've taken better care of them. Where are the conservatives who always rant about personal responsibility on this issue?

More money>personal responsibility.

[Kulanae]

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-in...ewed-pubs.html

40 peer reviewed articles found nothing adverse in test animals that consumed the food.

[Mortai2]

Watch Food, Inc. Not only will that documentary change the way you look at food, but it will make you want to Google Monsanto and read. I know I did :P

I'm not an expert on this stuff, I'll say that straight out. The notion that these GMO crops are "feeding the world" is an illusion. There are a lot of peer-reviewed studies out there that I'll let you folks find on your own (because if I link any I'll get blasted out of this thread for being liberally or conservatively tilted so fast I'll get motion sickness) that show that GMO crops DO NOT yield larger harvests. They're simply resistant to the pesticides that are sprayed all over them. Monsanto will go after farmers using their own seed if the GMO patented seed (yeah, they patented seeds) are found in the farmer's seed. Which means nature, in blowing seeds around, is causing these farmers to lose their livelihoods due to the fact that Monsanto comes in and sues the pants off of them.

Additionally, it has also been shown that traditional farming methods are better for the soil. The soil can be reused the following growing years for more crops, however the pesticide-laden fields are only good for a few seasons until the natural minerals and whatnot found IN the soil is sucked up and must be replenished. When all is taken into account, traditional farming methods are still superior.

I know I made it sound like I'm vilifying Monsanto, and I am, because I believe that they're "evil," but I'm also a scientifically trained man who doesn't jump to conclusions after reading two or three pieces of information I randomly Googled. I did a lot of research. I urge everybody else to do the same, and see what kind of future the world of Monsanto and GMO crops has in store for us. I'm not saying Apocalypse, here, I'm just saying it won't be all sunshine and lollipops that Monsanto might say it will be.

Thanks for reading

[This name sucks]

I'd be more concerned about a massive monopoly controlling the world's food supply than genetic modification. Genetically modifying anything takes the greatest biologists, botanists, physicists, geneticists, etc-ists minds in the world and I trust whatever do more than I would even trust nature. (Is this mushroom going to kill me)

[cFortyfive]

Well let's say I wouldn't be incredibly hasty getting an extinguisher if they'd happen to burn.

[Laize]

Kind of strange that monsanto will sue people when their seeds land on someone else's land. What happened to personal responsibility? If you lose those seeds, it's no longer yours. If they blew in the wind you should've taken better care of them. Where are the conservatives who always rant about personal responsibility on this issue?

Originally it wasn't a problem.

Originally Monsanto corn has a terminator in its genes to prevent the GMO crops from creating seeds.

The corn was, in fact, unable to reproduce.

People flippe shit and called Monsanto evil. So Monsanto took the terminator out and had farmers sign contracts saying that they wouldn't use the seeds created by Monsanto crops. You had to sign the contract to be able to legally grow Monsanto corn. People flipped shit again.

What people seem to be forgetting is that Monsanto developed a breed of corn that was resistant to multiple kinds of disease and drought resistant. They're entitled to profit off of that.

So would you rather they profit off of the terminator (sterile seeds) or would you rather they have farmers sign contracts and prevent people from growing their crops with unauthorized seed?

[Pipebomb]

When I think of Monsanto I think of the terminator (sterilized) seed genetics and agent orange.

In 1999 Monsanto said that after consultations with experts and customers, it was making a public commitment never to commercialise sterile seed technologies.

Then in 2000 ..."We've continued right on with work on the Technology Protection System [Terminator]. We never really slowed down. We're on target, moving ahead to commercialize it. We never really backed off." - Harry Collins

You don't have to look far to find pure evil and corruption within Monsanto. I think it's rather ignorant and naive to say Monsanto's doing "great work".

There should at least be GMO labels.

GM foods not served in Monsanto cafeteria
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/1...ood991222.html

[Kraenen]

Originally it wasn't a problem.

Originally Monsanto corn has a terminator in its genes to prevent the GMO crops from creating seeds.

The corn was, in fact, unable to reproduce.

People flippe shit and called Monsanto evil. So Monsanto took the terminator out and had farmers sign contracts saying that they wouldn't use the seeds created by Monsanto crops. You had to sign the contract to be able to legally grow Monsanto corn. People flipped shit again.

What people seem to be forgetting is that Monsanto developed a breed of corn that was resistant to multiple kinds of disease and drought resistant. They're entitled to profit off of that.

So would you rather they profit off of the terminator (sterile seeds) or would you rather they have farmers sign contracts and prevent people from growing their crops with unauthorized seed?

I would rather they were responsible for their actions. Monsanto blamed someone else for what Monsanto did in taking out the terminator seed. Monsanto blamed someone else when their seeds got into someone else's farm and profited massively from it. Then they think they're entitled to someone else's profits because Monsanto was irresponsible with their produce.

[Underverse]

Hmmm many problems with GM foods.

1. Roundup ready allows the use of destructive pesticides that don't harm crops, but annihilate everything else. Obviously bad for whatever ecosystems remain around these croplands.

2. Monopoly on food sources

3. Adverse effects of using B. thuringiensis endotoxins. They can kill unintended targets. They can cause sensitivity reactions in people. Most commercial Bt pesticides contain viable spores which can produce diarrheal endotoxins. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...199.x/abstract)

4. Continuing from 3, exposure to Bt spores can lead to hypersensitivity reactions (IgE/IgG responses). (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1566654/)

5. Bt pesticides have been found in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses, suggesting the possibility that Bt endotoxins can accumulate in the body due to insufficient elimination mechanisms. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...90623811000566)

6. Why are we patenting genomes again? Especially considering the amount of variation within populations...

Soo we can cure global hunger, but at what cost? And then, at what cost when we have 12 billion people?

[artemishunter1]

Originally it wasn't a problem.

Originally Monsanto corn has a terminator in its genes to prevent the GMO crops from creating seeds.

The corn was, in fact, unable to reproduce.

People flippe shit and called Monsanto evil. So Monsanto took the terminator out and had farmers sign contracts saying that they wouldn't use the seeds created by Monsanto crops. You had to sign the contract to be able to legally grow Monsanto corn. People flipped shit again.

What people seem to be forgetting is that Monsanto developed a breed of corn that was resistant to multiple kinds of disease and drought resistant. They're entitled to profit off of that.

So would you rather they profit off of the terminator (sterile seeds) or would you rather they have farmers sign contracts and prevent people from growing their crops with unauthorized seed?

There should be limitation of patents or else there will be no competition and Monsanto will own everything.

[Laize]

I would rather they were responsible for their actions. Monsanto blamed someone else for what Monsanto did in taking out the terminator seed. Monsanto blamed someone else when their seeds got into someone else's farm and profited massively from it. Then they think they're entitled to someone else's profits because Monsanto was irresponsible with their produce.

Monsanto took out the terminator gene because of public outcry. They listened to their customers and allowed the seeds to be genetically fertile. They still had to make money though.

Personally I thought ti would be better if they left the terminator in.

[Gheld]

I say genetically modify everything. Evolution did not create our food with human consumption in mind. We, on the other hand, can bend nature to our liking.

This, absolutely this, and only this.

We didn't get into the 21st century on organic agriculture, and all natural bullshit. We got to where we are now by defying nature. If you don't like defying nature then start your own damn garden and let me eat my bowl of GMO Flakes, with fortified milk in peace. Farm land is cheap. Start a subsistence farm if you are so concerned about what is being grown commercially.

[cFortyfive]

This, absolutely this, and only this.

We didn't get into the 21st century on organic agriculture, and all natural bullshit. We got to where we are now by defying nature. If you don't like defying nature then start your own damn garden and let me eat my bowl of GMO Flakes, with fortified milk in peace. Farm land is cheap. Start a subsistence farm if you are so concerned about what is being grown commercially.

As far as I am aware nobody is keeping you from eating your crap.

[Gheld]

As far as I am aware nobody is keeping you from eating your crap.

That's a factual inaccuracy.
http://www.stopgm.org.uk/
http://www.synergymag.ca/campaign-to-stop-gmo-crops/
http://www.facebook.com/StopGmoFarmingAmendment
http://www.saynotogmos.org/
http://www.meetup.com/InsideTrackPar...thread=5057676

I could go on forever.

The fact is people are calling to stop the production of GMO crops all together. So you are wrong and/or lied.