Report: 3 Reasons Why GMOs Won’t Feed the World
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I had a dime for every time I could have said that about your posts I would be rich!
“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.
” (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.
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………
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?