Report: 3 Reasons Why GMOs Won’t Feed the World
(And how to actually fight hunger)
Latest News
Think we need GMOs to feed the world? Think again. In a new analysis published by the Environmental Working Group, it is clear that genetically modified ingredients are the last thing the world needs to feed and nourish its people.
Sure, there are a lot of people on this planet and the number is growing every day, but GMOs simply aren’t the answer, though they are touted by Big Biotech and the enforcers of industrial agriculture as vital. Their propaganda falls flat, though. Consider these key facts in direct contrast to claims made by the industry:
1. GE Crops Everywhere
All those GMO corn and soybeans we are growing – millions of acres, requiring untold tons of herbicides and pesticides to grow – are feeding animals and cars, not so much the people.
2. Claims About GE Productivity
Numerous (biotech-funded) studies have shown that GE crops are more productive than non-GE crops. That is now proven to be bunk. For example, a recent case study in Africa found that crops that were crossbred for drought tolerance using traditional techniques improved yields 30 percent more than GE varieties.
3. GE Pollution
While proponents of GMOs say GE is feeding the world, they leave out that GMOs are also destroying it. Aside from contaminating non-GE crops, biotech’s product is spoiling our water, our air, and our soil. Roundup has been found in all three. Pesticides are even showing up in our blood, urine, and breast milk – proving that they are not so easily excreted from our bodies.
4 Natural Ways to Combat the Biotech Industry
Instead of counting on the lies of the biotech industry to feed us, some common-sense strategies would work much better to increase food supplies in a more sustainable way. These include:
1. Improved Resource Management
A simple change like using fertilizers in a smarter way could increase total caloric availability by 30%. Consider the farmer in California who has been enjoying record yields utilizing only organic compost on just 8 acres of land. We don’t need industrial chemicals to grow food. We just need to fertilize better and nurture the soil for better food outcomes.
2. Eliminating GM Bio-fuels
All the energy it takes to grow corn for ethanol (not to mention the money that is thrown at biotech companies in the form of tax-payer-subsidized government grants) is unnecessary. “Cheap-green ethanol” isn’t so cheap and it isn’t so green. Instead, it props up petroleum based cars and fuel consumption and displaces other, cleaner methods of energy utilization – such as solar, wind, or electric cars.
It also takes up an inordinate amount of land to grow ethanol-based biofuels, when that same land could be used to grow non-GM food to feed…people. We have also neglected to utilize biofuels from resources like Hemp which take almost no pesticides to grow, and could provide the world with fuel without resorting to the use of GM seed.
Hemp biodiesel has shown a high efficiency of conversion (97%) and has passed laboratory’s tests, displaying properties that suggest it could be used at lower temperatures than any biodiesel currently on the market.
Of course, biotech companies don’t want you to know about any of this. Their subsidies for GM corn are around $5 billion annually.
3. Cutting Global Meat Consumption
This isn’t a ploy by vegans and vegetarians everywhere to get you to give up steak and hamburgers. The fact is that it takes a whole lot of grain (or GMO soy and corn) to feed a single cow or pig. If everyone cut their meat consumption in half, we would experience a 27% increase in food availability from growing non-GM crops. The trade off to greater global meat consumption is more polluted water, more energy use, and less nutrients overall to each man, woman and child.
“The livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as a whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gasses and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, while in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution.” — Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock’s Long Shadow
4. Eliminating Food Waste
This is huge in a world that throws away so much food. Eliminating food waste from every part of the food chain – from the farm, to the transportation of food and even at the table, will contribute an additional 33% to the global food supply. Shockingly, Americans throw away nearly half of all the food that is created, and we are also the biggest growers/consumers of GM crops!
Around the world, we produce approximately four billion metric tonnes of food per annum. Yet, due to poor practices in harvesting, storage and transportation, as well as market and consumer waste, it is estimated that 30–50% (or 1.2–2 billion tonnes) of all food produced never reaches a human stomach. All that waste accounts for nearly $165 billion annually in the US alone. Now that could grow a lot of organic kale.
Making changes to biofuel policies, reducing food wastes, and changing diets could not only improve the lives of farmers and their families the world over, but also double calorie availability and reduce the environmental burden of food production.
Just remember, biotech isn’t trying to feed the world. They are just trying to sell their poison product.
“What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain” – Robert Fraley, co-president of Monsanto’s agricultural sector 1996, in the Farm Journal. Quoted in: Flint J. (1998) Agricultural industry giants moving towards genetic monopolism. Telepolis, Heise.
|
| Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga. |
Not that I’m ‘pro-GMO’ or anything but… ….don’t the ‘animals’ in the ‘animals & cars’ then go on to feed the people? Like, aren’t animals usually ‘grown’ for food?
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to
fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO
pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.
The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future
generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for
organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―they deadly weed
killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to
survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds
of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,”
resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more
toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental
harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for
example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects,
and cancer.
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering
unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective
of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a
GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new
toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering
unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects.
Do you know of any examples of any unpredicted side effects that have occurred with commercial GM crops?
the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies
Again, do you know of any examples where this has occurred with commercial GM crops released for public consumption? This is a theoretical risk, but it’s one that can be screened for. The idea that novel carcinogens are going to ‘magically’ appear is not based on any science that I am aware of. Show me the evidence.
I doubt you’ll actually answer my questions with any actual peer-reviewed research, because I doubt you can.
“This is a theoretical risk, but it’s one that can be screened for.”
I can see what kind of person you are. You have shown this time and time again. You are the type of individual that has no problem using humans as guinea pigs for experiments that may seriously affect the health and safety of the population.
You are so conceited and sure of yourself to believe that you know all about GMOs.
Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you don’t.
There is no peer-reviewed research regarding the long term effects of GMOs.
But hey, maybe you have a special crystal ball!
I don’t know everything about GMOs. But I know more about the issue that you do. That’s for sure.
“I don’t know everything about GMOs.”
Well then how the heck are you so sure fire positive they are safe?
“But I know more about the issue that you do.”
You just can’t resist making yourself look better then others. can you.
You have such an inflated ego. You fit in perfectly with the Monsanto mind set.
then how the heck are you so sure fire positive they are safe?
Because I have taken the time to understand the science and read numerous research papers.
You just can’t resist making yourself look better then others. can you.
Just stating a fact.
Because Because you “have taken the time to understand the science and read numerous research papers.”
This makes you positive they are safe?
No that makes you THINK they MAY be safe.
That gives us an educated opinion, something you have no clue about. Now tell us what kind of government we have Jon boy.
Ah Bobo. Too bad you have to include yourself in others intellectual discussions when you are missing an intellect. You must feel very lonely that no one wants to include you in their discussions. This is the big leagues little Robby. You better go upstairs and see what your mommy wants.
Compared to you I am an intellect. Now try to tell us what kind of government we have Jonny, before your wife gets home from trying out new tools.
Someone claiming to be smarter than you isn’t really going out on a limb very far.
Translation required by the board
Thanks
See you can’t even figure out something that simple, but again you don’t know what type of government we have either “little” Jonny.
There is no peer-reviewed research regarding the long term effects of GMOs.
Oh yeah, that’s a lie.
Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399
Genetic engineering is a device to address food shortage, among other things. It’s ridiculous to through away a device simply because it isn’t 100% successful. That’d be like saying ‘I don’t wear a seatbelt because it doesn’t save 100% of people in car accidents, so why bother?”.
Yes, reducing meat consumption, food waste and the use of food crops for biofuel are all good ideas. But there is no rational reason to reject useful technologies like genetic engineering. The reasons people like Christina Sarich present are not based in reason but rather in ignorance and prejudice.
Well said.
That’s some fine reasoning, Skeptologist. Hopefully soon they’ll be able to modify the rest of the world’s crops to withstand heavier loads of toxic chemicals, since the ongoing contamination of our bodies, the air, the water, the soil, other lifeforms, etc is obviously a great idea. Who cares if GMOs aren’t sustainable, destroying the soil and creating super-bugs and weeds. Who cares if virtually every health-educated person out there has cut GMOs out of their diet and claims to look and feel better. Who cares if GMOs are an OBVIOUSLY stupid idea, since stupid is good when highly paid industry scientists and lobbyists say it is, and when it makes their bosses incredibly wealthy.
Since you seem to be a rebel against good sense and skeptical of the obvious, I’d best point out that I was being sarcastic.
Rizz, I am a health-educated person. I am also a trained molecular biologist and specialize in plant biochem. I work with non-agricultural GMOs. What you’re saying isn’t accurate. You may believe it is, but you have been misled. I don’t have time today to correct all your misunderstanding. But I suggest you try looking into scientific sources. Avoid blogs and mainstream media as these are frequently grossly inaccurate when it comes to GMOs. For example, check out Scientific American if you want something written more for the general public. But if you have a background in biology, use Google Scholar and read some review papers on on this subject that are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. If you’re really knowledgeable, go straight to the primarily research papers (but if you were this knowledgeable, I doubt we’d be having this conversation).
I have done my research, thanks. Putting aside the issue gene manipulation, plenty of scientific studies point out the fact that it’s not a good idea to consume poison in the form of glyphosate and the like in any amount, and that research certainly makes the most sense to me along with a growing percentage of the population. But you strike me as an industry shill, so you’re probably aware of all that.
Glyphosate is not a GMO. I agree that glyphosate likely presents a health risk. But criticizing GMOs because of glyphosate makes me think you don’t understand this issue as well as you think you do.
I didn’t say glyphosate was a GMO; I was clearly speaking of it in relation to “Roundup-ready” crops. Your attempts to obscure my arguments rather than address them is another mark of an industry-paid shill. I won’t waste any more of my time trying to keep you on topic.
Righting off people you disagree with as shills is exceptionally intellectually lazy. It’s not my fault you didn’t clarify what you were talking about.
(Ok, I guess I’ll waste a little more of my time.)
I didn’t think clarification was needed when the very purpose of most GMO crops (soy, corn, conola, etc) is to withstand glyphosate, and when I all but spelled this out in my very first post. The two go hand in hand. Speaking of being intellectually lazy, I find it impossible to believe you didn’t deduce this from what I said, so hopefully you’ll forgive my having concluded that you’re being paid to argue with people. Allow me to be abundantly clear this time:
Since you concede that glyphosate ‘likely’ presents a health risk, and given that the vast majority of GMO crops were engineered to withstand a shower of glyphosate, it follows that eating GMO crops ‘likely’ presents a health risk. That’s by your own reasoning. Am I missing something?
Sure, for the sake of moving on I’m willing to say I could have just assumed you were talking about RoundUp Ready crops. I don’t like making assumptions though, but for the sake of argument I should have made one in this case.
it follows that eating GMO crops ‘likely’ presents a health risk.
No, it does not. For the same reason that drinking a glass of water doesn’t automatically put you at risk of dilutional hyponatremia. What matters is the amount of a substance a person consumes, not that it’s being consumed. While I accept that there are levels at which glyphosate presents a health risk, I am also willing to accept that there may be levels at which glyphosate poses no risk. However, let me be very clear, I do not know if this is true or what these levels would be. I am simply saying that it does not automatically follow that any crop treated with glyphosate is inherently dangerous. I have not seen evidence to convince me that that line of reasoning is sound.
“I am also willing to accept that there may be levels at which glyphosate poses no risk. However, let me be very clear, I do not know if this is true or what these levels would be.”
If you don’t know, why are you so defensive? There is an increasing body of research which strongly suggests glyphosate is measurably harmful at typical exposure levels. Erring on the side of toxicity rather than avoidance is an essential difference between the approach of someone who is not truly conscious of their health, and someone who is.
I’m not defensive. I’m just used to scientific language where you must be careful in stating exactly the what you know with confidence and what you are unsure about. I can see why it may seem defensive. I agree that the exposure levels agricultural workers may experience present a risk, but I am not convinced that residues consumers may be exposed to pose a significant risk.
“but I am not convinced that residues consumers may be exposed to pose a significant risk.”
No of course not because you are biased from working for Monsanto.
And you don’t care if the environment or humans is being affected becauase you are in favour of profits over health.
Yes, I work for Monsanto, DuPont, Blackwater, the CIA, MI6, the Koch brothers, Syngenta, Pfizer, and am a member of the Illuminati. Since you apparently know who I work for, please let me know if I missed anything.
What a moronic comment.
If I had a dime for every time I could have said that about your posts I would be rich!
” However, let me be very clear, I do not know if this is true or what these levels would be”
It is good to have you finally accept this. This is what underlies your fallacy
What fallacy? Do you even understand what the word “fallacy” means? I don’t think you do.
You certainly do. You prove it every time you post here
“is exceptionally intellectually lazy”
See what I mean. He has a very high brow attitude and thinks he is in the elite crowd so everyone else is beneath him.
Let’s not mince words here. These two toxins are inextricably linked. One begets the other.
“GMO” is not a toxin. Your comment is really quite ignorant.
Gmo is a toxin
Your comment is without substance
That is a completely nonsensical statement. You’re ignorant, lying or playing games. Regardless of which it is, I don’t have any more time to waste with someone as immature and closed minded as yourself.
And you are a fool to think that you have alll the facts. We all would wish you would not waste OUR time having to counter your one sided bias lies and deceptions. You and your little sidekick troll Bobo aren’t welcome here. If you want to peddle your toxins on behalf of your bosses at Monsanto do it somewhere else. We aren’t buying your nonsense.
” (but if you were this knowledgeable, I doubt we’d be having this conversation).”
This is the tone this guy normally takes. If you don’t agree with his position he will insult you.
“Genetic engineering is a device to address food shortage”
No, incorrect
It is a means to make larger profits for large AG corporations
” It’s ridiculous to through away a device simply because it isn’t 100% successful.”
It’s not successful, it’s not necessary, it’s not safe and it’s not sustainable.
if you were right then golden rice wouldn’t exist, but since it does you are wrong as usual.
Sorry you’re wrong again
Your opinion without proof means you conceded yet again. Thanks Jon boy.
Alphonse Mephesto 4 Assed Monkey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEAJ741bxnY
You don’t know what you’re talking about. But then, that’s painfully obvious to anyone who has suffered through a few of your inane comments.
Sticks and stones………