I must take issue with your recent opinion piece by TJ Menn, printed on Monday, Aug. 18. After opening with a shamelessly sensationalized appeal for us to consider all the people who are dying of hunger in the world, the
I must take issue with your recent opinion piece by TJ Menn, printed on Monday, Aug. 18.
After opening with a shamelessly sensationalized appeal for us to consider all the people who are dying of hunger in the world, the article does nothing to support the unspoken implication that GM technology will somehow do something to prevent these deaths. Instead, we are treated to a barrage of misleading and unsubstantiated claims.
On reading the section on pesticides, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a Pioneer employee. I was told that they are using technology to create better varieties, but when pressed as to the focus of Pioneer’s research and development, he had to admit that the majority of the crops they were working on were herbicide resistant ones, i.e., products that enable the farmer to spray the entire field with herbicide. These kinds of products are a big part of the GM product lineup and it’s no accident; what we are dealing with here are chemical companies who have adopted biotech as a vehicle for increasing their chemical sales (Pioneer itself started off as strictly a seed company but was subsumed by DuPont).
It’s convenient that Round-up ready crops are just starting to lose their patent protection now that so many weeds are becoming resistant to the active ingredient, Glyphosate; this has already spurred the development of a new round of herbicide-resistant crops that will result in the massive spraying of heavier poisons like 2,4-D and worse. The fact is, a lot of the Round-up ready soybeans currently available to farmers contain the newer Round-up ready 2 genetics which are not expiring anytime soon and even if you can find Round-up ready 1 seed, it usually contains other traits that are still protected. While it is still possible that “generic” seed with Round-up ready 1 genetics could be produced, most farmers lack the knowledge or inclination to undertake such a breeding program, and universities are unlikely to undertake such work, as they are increasingly beholden to the interests of their corporate sponsors. Agronomist Greg Roth, Ph.D., of Penn State, puts it bluntly: “When farmers replant the seed, then there’s no economic incentive for the universities or other people to develop breeding programs …”
Mr. Menn also libelously implies that organic farming practices result in greater damage to the soil than conventional agriculture. Section 205.203(a) of the NOP, (the federal regulatory framework governing organic food) states that an organic farmer must “select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve the physical, chemical and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion.” Thus, anyone utilizing tillage practices that degrade the soil is, by definition, not an organic farmer.
Any argument for GM crops to be considered sustainable is bogus. They can only be called “more sustainable” when compared to the worst of existing conventional practices and within a limited scope of criteria. As Carol Deppe (a Ph.D. in biology who specialized in molecular genetics) so aptly puts it, “These arguments are comparable to those of the man who says he’s treating his wife compassionately these days, because he has started beating her with a horsewhip, whereas he used to use baseball bats and chains.”
•••
Collin Dana is a Lawai resident.
