Seeds of Conflict

[thesummerqueen]

ಠ_ಠ

Seeds of Conflict
Genetically modified corn and soy dominate U.S. farms, but activist raids have kept Europe GMO-free. The fight over the next Green Revolution has just begun.

I think you have to register (for free) to see the article.

The heart of the conflict, in my opinion:

While the first transgenic plants sparked fear and controversy, suspicion seemed to stop at the fields’ edge. The same basic methods are used to coax bacteria and algae to synthesize plastics and biofuel. The pharmaceutical industry uses genetically modified bacteria and animals to produce insulin, vaccines, and a wide variety of drugs. Such applications, Paarlberg argues, are widely accepted because they provide clear benefit to consumers in the form of green fuel or reliable medicine.

and

Perhaps that is because genetically modified crops, which boost productivity and lower cost of chemicals and fuel, benefit multinational corporations and farmers, but not consumers themselves. And to scientists like Jacobsen and van Montagu, that is most frustrating of all.

---

Follow up

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collid...UhprBe-pkR

The Discover headline was so promising: “Anti-GMO Grass-Roots Effort Gains Ground in U.S.” I hoped it would be about just how strange the alliances in the anti-GMO movement are. We have groups like the Environmental Working Group and the Union of Concerned Scientists working alongside organic industry boosters and organic food companies. And then there are the (louder and shriller ) groups that claim dire risks from GMO foods. So this opposition in the U.S. is a topic that deserves closer examination.

Instead, what I found is a piece that repeated–almost without challenge–misleading claims about GMOs stated by anti-GMO activists. Most of these claims are at best half-truths. Let me be up front: I can’t write about everything I think is misleading in this piece. There’s just too much. But, there are a few ideas that are repeated uncritically which are far more interesting than this piece lets on.

Probably the most common claim of anti-GMO activists is that GMOs are untested and unsafe. Charles Benbrook, an organic proponent (why is a proponent of organic and opponent of GM merely labeled an “agricultural policy expert”?) is quoted in the story saying that the “science just hasn’t been done.” That’s just not true. There are hundreds upon hundreds of studies. Genetically engineered crops are some of the few foods tested before they come on the market and all the data is on the EPA’s website. This testing is not typically the case for non-biotech foods. In the 1950s, the kiwi fruit was introduced to the U.S. without testing. We’ve since learned that it’s allergenic. More recently, new celery varieties have resulted in contact rashes in workers due to increased amounts of natural toxicants called psolarens (similarly, new potato varieties sometimes develop excess toxic solanine).

But there’s a kernel of truth behind the not tested claim. David Schubert (who is cited in the piece as a biologist without noting his association with the anti-GMO campaigner Jeffrey Smith) is very careful when he says: “no significant safety testing is required by FDA.” That is absolutely true. All safety testing done on GMO crops is voluntary. But even though it’s voluntary, every company has complied! The lack of mandatory testing does unnecessarily worry people: what good is the FDA if it can’t even require safety testing for food? This is perhaps why the American Medical Association recommended mandatory safety testing, despite also saying current GMO foods are safe and labeling is unnecessary. Pre-market testing should probably be mandatory, but it’s just not the case that GMOs are untested before going to market.

Bolding mine.

[The Grand Nudger]

The FDA, like most regulatory agencies (in stark contrast to some other governmental agencies), is chronically -and I would argue intentionally- underfunded. That they strongly suggest but cannot enforce mandatory this or that is just symptom of their situation on the political totem pole. When they have the cash and manpower to mandate something, they generally do. Personally, I think the FDA has made a very accurate appraisal of it's abilities and limitations and that this has invariably influenced their policies. I'm kind of fond of the pragmatism and realism in such agencies.

On the issue at hand, compliance is a quicker and least resistant route to profit, and that motivation is probably greater than any sanction or restriction could be given the current environment that agribusiness operates under. The heart of the anti-gmo conflict is, in my opinion, ignorance of just what gmo means, and what it entails.

[thesummerqueen]

It's a lack of science-understanding, and also a hatred of corporations.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hey now, I dislike big ag as much as the next guy, largely because they have ceased cutting me my check.......

---

We got defunded, largely due to complaints from other nearby competing businesses due to our low price point to consumers despite -or in spite of- the high initial cost of investment and how those organizations perceived our activities as detrimental to their own profits/relative number of friends on state review boards.

"Ha, look at how expensive that was, these guys will never make it! Can't grow no crops from book'learnin."
"Shit boys they made it......"
"Fuck me they're cheaper than us"
"Get the pitchforks, does anybody have friends on the review board?"

sigh

---

[Minimalist]

The FDA, like most regulatory agencies (in stark contrast to some other governmental agencies), is chronically -and I would argue intentionally- underfunded.

The model of what the republibertarianeo-conazi bastards want for the whole government.... in the name of "freedom," of course. "Freedom" for big corporations to do whatever the fuck they want.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, almost forgot to mention, Summer, and this will probably tickle you pink. Our agri-giant adversaries found temporary allies in local organic activists and were essentially locking arms around us, circling their wagons "they aren't even organic!" (as though this somehow weighed in on whether or not our research site was worthy of research dollars or could produce valuable data) with some of the heaviest users of -cringe- chemical nutrients, pesticides, and after harvest processing (strawberry and central fl cabbage.tomato producers) imaginable.........

[thesummerqueen]

[snorts]

[Dawud]

To be fair - mass production of veg has lead to a phenomenal loss in its nutritional value at the gain of output and transportability...

I don't think that unfettered capitalism leads to good diet - the invisible hand seems to help our diet be nutritionally much worse than 100 years ago.

I don't suggest avoiding GMO based on Luddite superstition but I feel a healthy dose of skepticism is pretty essential when dealing with mass production of fruit and veg...

Maybe people in the states are scared of scientific meddling... Maybe here in the UK.

I'm not - but developing plants that cannot produce their own seeds so that corporations can ensure you buy them again every year is also definitely something it seems sensible to oppose (on the basis of a safe spread of power - food is life).

[thesummerqueen]

100 years ago we didn't have anywhere near the access to nutrition we have today. People choose not to eat it, is all. Or they eat too well of fatty foods.

[Foxaèr]

People choose not to eat it, is all.

Actually, it is all about cost. It is more expensive to eat healthy. Why spend an entire paycheck on a salad, after all, when one can purchase a hundred cheeseburgers to feed the entire family?