Arguments Against GMOs (and Industrial Agriculture)
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 11.30.05
We know some people that are not very impressed by some of the most common arguments against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Saying that we don't know what will happen once they are introduced in nature, that they could be invasive, disturb the food chain, that we're going against nature, etc. We're not saying they're not valid concerns, but it all seems a bit too speculative for some people. So as time went on, we've identified a couple of more pragmatic arguments that seem to get these people's attention and that are hard to argue against... These arguments do no apply to all kind of GMOs, of course (there are all kinds), but they do to some of the widely used kinds.
The first one is that for most a certain variety of GMOs, the big selling point is that they are more pesticide-resistant than natural crops. They were engineered to resist to certain chemicals. What that means de facto is that more pesticides and herbicides will be used, and thus that more poison will be added to the food chain (including what ends up on the shelves of the supermarket) and underground water wells. I doubt that many people are saying that we are currently using too little of these chemicals and that more should be sprayed on food.
The second argument is more socio-economic; it is based on the fact that GMOs are usually patented bio-technology and that, just like fertilizers and pesticides, they are very expensive (especially to third world residents).
Once the farmers have entered the cycle of using these things, it is very hard to stop using them; because large industrial monocultures are like magnets to pests (unlike polycultures), they don't have a choice to use some form of pest-control. Large monocultures also cause soil erosion and deplete nutrients, so there is no choice but to use fertilizers (usually nitrogen-based, made with natural gas). Since GMOs are patented and they often can't legally re-use their seeds, they have to buy new ones each year.
In the end, farmers have to sell more each year just to be able to pay for all that technology, so they end up buying more land and machinery to that end, and so they get into more debt, and so on. Soon after they enter into that industrial agriculture cycle, they discover that they are producing more, making less money and that their food and land is dropping in quality. A good parallel is the situation of the fishermen of South-Eastern Asia, but that's another post...
Nothing gets better for them or for the people who eat their food, but the big corporations that sell GMOs, fertilizer and chemicals make a fat profit.
It is no wonder that these sellers of industrial agriculture wares approach farmers (especially in Asia, India and Africa) and offer them freebies the first years: It's like a drug pusher that want to get you hooked up because he knows you won't have a choice but to come back later...
We're not saying that GMOs are intrinsically bad. Like all technologies, bio-tech is a tool. In this case, it is rather the implementation, the "business model" that is bad in many cases. We could imagine many scenarios where they would actually be beneficial, so don't get us wrong.
We would really like to know what are the arguments against GMOs and industrial agriculture that you find the most convincing (or arguments in favor). Please don't hesitate to let us know in the comments or blog about it.
::Organic Farming More Than Competitive, ::Monsanto pays $1M for GMO bribe, ::WorldWatch on GMOs, ::The Argument against GMO
what about gmo's such as this?
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=11391&start=1&control=222&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
i concur with the above in a lot of ways, but with something like this new discover
Could you explain why GMO crops are more pesticide-resistant than natural crops? One of the arguments I've heard for GMO crops is that they're engineered to be pest-resistant so they don't need as many pesticides used on them. Thanks.
Color me unimpressed with those arguments.
Many GMOs are designed to be more resistant to pests, rather than pesticides, so they require less pesticides. Others are designed to require less fertilizer. Others are designed to be more nutritious, to ship better, to last longer, etc., etc.
The fact that GMOs might be more expensive than non-GMOs is not an argument that they shouldn't exist. It just isn't. C'mon.
Saying that mono-culture industrial farming is a bad thing is also not an argument that GMOs shouldn't exist.
GMOs are a technology that might have the potential for causing ecological disaster. That's reason enough for the technology to be closely monitored and regulated. But coming up with "booga-booga" irrational arguments doesn't contribute much to the issue.
I to am in the same boat as Matt.
The GMO's are genetically modified to be better able to resist pest in turn reducing pesticide use.
I'm more then a little confused on the statements that appear to contradict that.
Karl,
Your counter arguments are interesting, but I think we are talking past each others.
If you'll notice, I never mentioned that these arguments applied to all GMOs, and I even mention that I don't think they are "intrinsically" bad, and at the end that I could see ways in which GMOs could be beneficial. So I'm not in the "booga booga" camp.
What I talked about were certain specific cases; the GMOs that are made to be pesticide-resistant (because they are in wide use) and the "business" model of intellectual property.
What you are doing is basically saying that my arguments don't apply to things I never said they applied too.
I could see how you could have thought otherwise because of the title of the post which is broad (and short, that's the point), but I think that it's fairly clear in the text that I'm talking about specific things and not about "all past, present and future GMOs".
I've edited the post a bit to try to make it a bit clearer what I was talking about.
Matt & co, some varieties of GMOs are indeed made to be more pest-resistant in themselves, but others are made to be resistant to certain chemicals...
Here's the deal with herbicide-resistant crops:
There are a few types of GMO seeds (mainly corn and soybeans) that have been engineered to be what the industry calls "Roundup Ready." Roundup is a pretty common herbicide -- you can buy it at any home supply store. This means that once germinated, the field of crops can actually be sprayed with an herbicide known known as Roundup(glyphosate) which will kill all of the "weeds," but not the "crop." Unfortunately, many of these "weeds" are a necessary habitat for various species of critters. I remember specifically that this practice of dumping glyphosate is having an especially negative impact on monarch butterflies, who rely on asclepias (a "weed") to live. Of course, it's also bad because more herbicide than has been used prior to now is leeching into our water supply.
Anyone who is interested in this issue should look into the realm of agroecology, or the idea that agricultural production should be looked at as a complex ecosystem that humans need to sustainably manage, not an industrialized monoculture. It's a pretty cool practice that is quickly disappearing due to the big guys changing the face of agriculture.
archive.wbai.org/files/mp3...paspec.MP3
This is Jeffrey M Smith speaking, author of Seeds of Deception.
Judge for yourself.
Sorry, here is the link.
For me, the biggest argument against GMO's was the huge, expensive campaign corporations like Monsanto used when Mendocino County, CA had an anti-GMO measure on the ballot a few years ago. Every day in my mail box, there were at least two flyers basically stating that this measure would allow the feds into my back yard (presumably to check for GMO's?). Mendo being in the Emerald Triangle, they knew how to scare this particular population.
Luckily, it didn't work. Mendo is GMO-free now, as are Marin and Humboldt Counties (darn you Sonoma, it coulda been a clean sweep!). But it really got my attention, how desperate Monsanto was to see that measure fail. They obviously have a lot to lose, and it's disturbing to think this was all about *food*, something that should never be allowed to be "owned" by one or two parties.
thank you sarah. i now understand. i hadn't realised that was a common form of genetic manipulation.
Karl writes: "The fact that GMOs might be more expensive than non-GMOs is not an argument that they shouldn't exist. It just isn't. C'mon."
No, but the supposition that organic food is more expensive than non-organic is often used as an argument against organic food. Seems like some people are trying to have it both ways.
One thing that jumps out for me in this article is that, as gmos take over the world, people have fewer choices, not more. Right now, for example, I have a choice to eat organic food, genetically modified food, etc. If things keep going the way they are, I may no longer have a choice to eat GM-free food, for one reason or another. That is one of the major reasons I am against GMOs.
The Tao of Biotechnology