GMO food marketers have flooded our established institutions with false claims and justification for the “developing world to go GMO,” or die, due to “climate change.”
The basic tenets supporting their arguments are that:
- genetically modified crops have higher yields than its organic counterpart, and;
- that “climate change,” its precursor “global warming,” and overpopulation are all real.
Here’s a typical “scientific argument” that they are parroting…
Why GMOs matter — especially for the developing world
… When we get down to the specifics, we find that today’s GMOs are neither planetary panacea nor unbridled poison… The GMO debate is often an emphatic and barely-disguised metaphor for our larger debate about whether technology is destroying the world or saving it, whether we should try to control nature or live within it.
… The scientific consensus is that GMOs are as safe to eat as any other food, that they reduce soil-damaging tillage, reduce carbon emissions, reduce insecticide use, and reduce the use of the most toxic herbicides in favor of far milder ones. GMOs have limitations, and some of their benefits are threatened by the rise of pesticide resistance. Even so, on balance, GMOs are safe and produce real benefits.
… there are two important reasons we should care about GMOs, and view them, certainly not as panaceas, but as imperfect but important tools that can improve the lives of millions of people right now and possibly have an impact on billions of lives and millions of square miles of nature in the decades to come.
… The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimates that we need to grow 70 percent more food by 2050. Either we do this on the same land we have today, or we chop down forest to create farms and pastures to meet that demand, something no one wants to do.
… These are just two projects among many, along with creating more drought-resistant crops, more salt-resistant crops, and crops that have higher levels of vitamins and minerals that people need.
We might make less progress in boosting yields, without GMOs, meaning food prices would be higher, hunger would be higher, or we’d have more pressure to chop down forests to grow food.
Or maybe we’d be just fine. But given the size of the challenge, and the absence of any credible evidence of harm from GMOs, robbing ourselves of this part of our toolkit strikes me as foolish.
After claiming that “GMOs can reduce insecticide use, and reduce the use of the most toxic herbicides in favor of far milder ones,” the same proponent proceeded with an admission that “GMOs have limitations, and some of their benefits are threatened by the rise of pesticide resistance.”
So, why take the risk of using RoundUp that won’t work as farmers’ would have expected, when they can choose instead those long established low cost, safer and saner methods?
If production yield is the problem with organic farming, why can’t we just increase farm output by increasing land areas dedicated to organic farming, like Russia is already doing?
Putin wants Russia to become world’s biggest exporter of Non-GMO food
Russia could become the world’s largest supplier of ecologically clean and high-quality organic food, said President Vladimir Putin on Thursday. He also called on the country to become completely self-sufficient in food production by 2020.
“We are not only able to feed ourselves taking into account our lands, water resources – Russia is able to become the largest world supplier of healthy, ecologically clean and high-quality food which the Western producers have long lost, especially given the fact that demand for such products in the world market is steadily growing,” said Putin, addressing the Russian Parliament on Thursday.
Russia produced almost 105 million tons of cereal last year and plans to increase production to over 111 million tons by 2017, according to the agriculture ministry.
The ministry is predicting grain production to grow by 25 percent over the next fifteen years to 130 million tons as a part of the strategic development of the cereals market.
The areas planted with grain are to be expanded, with cropped fields expected to increase to 49 million hectares (490,000 sq km) from the current 46 million.
These Russians really are bad, i.e. they keep using their common sense to avoid GMO, and even have a huge surplus to supply the organic food needs of the world.
While, pro-GMO mouthpieces love to emphasize “that we need to grow 70 percent more food by 2050,” and then go on with a restrictive set of options like “we do this on the same land we have today, or we chop down forest to create farms and pastures to meet that demand,” deliberately diverting the discussion away from non-regressive farming techniques.
Obviously, Russia doesn’t need to “chop down trees,” but only have to use resources, i.e. vast open lands that are already there – those same resources that their corporations are not trying to profit heavily from, like their counterparts in the West.
“Nestle extracted 36 million gallons of water from a national forest in California last year to sell as bottled water, even as Californians were ordered to cut their water use because of a historic drought in the state.
And the permit that Nestle uses to operate its water pipeline in the San Bernardino national forest costs just $524 (£357) a year. “
Whether technology is destroying the world, or saving it, depends largely on the motive of the purveyor. Undeniably, the existing economic system encourages the willful imposition of scarcity and hoarding to make as much profit as possible.
This is the reason why existing science and technology must be controlled, or suppressed to limit production to non-disruptive levels. The same reason why scientists and media networks must be silenced to keep the masses ignorant about those better options, and why the World Health Organization was involved in bioweapons research that is complicit in the spread of powerful viruses specifically in resource-rich countries like Africa and Latin America.
The Pyramid of Cartels dictates and in some cases, writes the actual anti-people policies of the government. They literally decide who live and who dies among us, in their idle times.
“The EU Commission and a few pro-GMO member states are trying to sneak through approvals for new GM crops to be grown in Europe’s fields – and they seem to be hoping that the public, press, concerned NGOs, and even MEPs won’t notice.
The Commission is putting forward two new GM insecticidal maize varieties for cultivation in the European Union – Pioneer’s 1507 and Syngenta’s Bt11 – as well as the reauthorization request for MON810. If passed, these would be the first new GM crops legally authorized for cultivation in the EU in 18 years.”
Disease and ignorance, rather than enhancing productivity and good health, are what they are aiming for to trim down the population to a more manageable level. That is the only logical conclusion we can derive from an in-depth study of the behavior of the regulators, the scientific priesthood, and the GMO food industry.
Otherwise, they could have transformed the deserts of Africa even with conventional technologies, like so:
The earth’s very first farm to utilize salt water as well as sunshine to grow vegetables in the centre of a desert has opened up for business. This innovation shows that the biotech-promoted misconception of requiring genetically altered food and also countless amounts of cancer causing chemicals to cultivate crops to feed the populace, is most probably largely misinformation.
Utilizing coconut husks, 23,000 mirrors to harness solar energy, and also desalinated water, is Sundrop Farms in Port Augusta, Australia. Without turning to chemicals, counting on rains, or looking to fossil fuels to power their system, is this a new innovative way to grow in dry arid climates.
This system challenges our dependency on our finite water, land and energy resources. In addition, it grows pesticide-free food. So, it breaks free of our dependency on the chemical industries which many blame for the marked increases in cancer and other diseases.
How much more they could accomplish if, instead of using their weather altering devices for unceasingly raining down on existing rice fields near its harvest season, they fire them up during hot summer and induce rainfall when it is most needed, so that production yield is increased?
Obviously, that’s not what eugenicist Henry Kissinger had in mind when he said, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”
In fact, it was Henry Kissinger who wrote the policy justification to reduce the Earth’s population through the use of birth suppressant vaccines, and other weapons of mass murder.
The truth of the matter is: there’s no overpopulation and there’s more than enough resources and scientific knowledge to go by.
- Urban overcrowding is not overpopulation, and it can be solved by smarter urban planning;
- Scarcity is not overpopulation, but a deliberate and direct result of the profit motive;
- Famine is not a natural phenomenon that is caused by mismanagement of resources, political failures, or as a direct result of displacement via wars and conflicts;
In the natural world, a single fish is still capable of producing thousands of fish fry in one delivery; each fruit tree is still producing seeds more than enough to replace it when it stops being productive. In short, the natural world is self-sustaining, there was never any need for man to intervene.
Tip: If human intervention is really needed, i.e. if in the rare case that the plant’s own immune system is not working effectively against pests, we can spray silver colloid which is cheaper and more effective than pesticides, or even use electric current directly into the soil in which they’re growing, to electrocute those invasive bacteria. We can always draw free electricity from solar panels, right?
There are far more compelling reasons why we need to change the whole state of affairs. We need to upgrade from the existing, highly corrosive monetary-based economic system into a techno-resource based system which provides incentives to, or necessitates the responsible use of existing technologies that would raise the level of production of organic food, installation of non-fossil fuel energy systems, and the recycling of all industrial wastes we have accumulated over the last 100 years.
We also need a massive purging of false knowledge from the web, like the premise made by the GMO proponent above, that the anti-GMO movement is not using sound judgement, but merely emotions and unscientific logic, when in fact, they do have firm bases why there’s never a need to apply genetic manipulations in the food industry.
10 Reasons Why We Don’t Need GM Foods
Here’s a good summary from the segment of the scientific community that the GMO mega-enterprise may have failed to buy-off.
1. GM foods won’t solve the food crisis
A 2008 World Bank report concluded that increased biofuel production is the major cause of the increase in food prices. GM giant Monsanto has been at the heart of the lobbying for biofuels (crops grown for fuel rather than food) – while profiting enormously from the resulting food crisis and using it as a PR opportunity to promote GM foods!
“The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry.” – Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent of The Independent
“The cynic in me thinks that they’re just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda. I understand why they’re doing it, but the danger is that if they’re making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, that’s bullshit.” – Prof Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology at the University of Glamorgan in Wales. 
2. GM crops do not increase yield potential
Despite the promises, GM has not increased the yield potential of any commercialised crops. In fact, studies show that the most widely grown GM crop, GM soya, has suffered reduced yields.
A report that analyzed nearly two decades worth of peer reviewed research on the yield of the primary GM food/feed crops, soybeans and corn (maize), reveals that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase US crop yields.
The author, former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr Gurian-Sherman, concludes that when it comes to yield, “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”
“Let’s be clear. As of this year , there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.” – Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman 
3. GM crops increase pesticide use
US government data shows that in the US, GM crops have produced an overall increase, not decrease, in pesticide use compared to conventional crops.
“The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.” – Bill Christison, President of the US National Family Farm Coalition 
4. There are better ways to feed the world
A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change, because better alternatives are available.
In particular, the report championed “agroecological” farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries.
5. Other farm technologies are more successful
Integrated Pest Management and other innovative low-input or organic methods of controlling pests and boosting yields have proven highly effective, particularly in the developing world. Other plant breeding technologies, such as Marker Assisted Selection (non-GM genetic mapping), are widely expected to boost global agricultural productivity more effectively and safely than GM. 
“The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping, helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a far greater impact on agriculture [than GM].” – Prof John Snape, head of the department of crop genetics, John Innes Centre 
6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat
Genetic modification is a crude and imprecise way of incorporating foreign genetic material (e.g. from viruses, bacteria) into crops, with unpredictable consequences. The resulting GM foods have undergone little rigorous and no long-term safety testing, but animal feeding tests have shown worrying health effects. Very few such studies have been published on the direct effects on humans of eating a GM food.
One found unexpected effects on gut bacteria, but was never followed up.
It is claimed that Americans have eaten GM foods for years with no ill effects. But these foods are unlabeled in the US and no one has monitored the consequences. With other novel foods like trans fats, it has taken decades to realize that they have caused millions of premature deaths.
“We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.” – Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist
- Stealth GMOs in animal feed – without consumers’ consent
Meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on the millions of tons of GM feed imported into Europe do not have to be labelled. Some studies show that contrary to GM and food industry claims, animals raised on GM feed ARE different from those raised on non-GM feed. 
Other studies show that if GM crops are fed to animals, GM material can appear in the resulting products and that the animals’ health can be affected. So eating “stealth GMOs” may affect the health of consumers.
- GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers
A 2009 report showed that GM seed prices in America have increased dramatically, compared to non-GM and organic seeds, cutting average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops.
The report concluded, “At the present time there is a massive disconnect between the sometimes lofty rhetoric from those championing biotechnology as the proven path toward global food security and what is actually happening on farms in the US that have grown dependent on GM seeds and are now dealing with the consequences.” 
- GM and non-GM cannot co-exist
GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. An unapproved GM rice that was grown for only one year in field trials was found to have extensively contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks.
In Canada, the organic oilseed rape industry has been destroyed by contamination from GM rape. In Spain, a study found that GM maize “has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible”.
The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply.
“If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. It’s a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once it’s made, it can’t be reversed.” – Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable development 
- We can’t trust GM companies
The big biotech firms pushing their GM foods have a terrible history of toxic contamination and public deception.  GM is attractive to them because it gives them patents that allow monopoly control over the world’s food supply.
They have taken to harassing and intimidating farmers for the “crime” of saving patented seed or “stealing” patented genes – even if those genes got into the farmer’s fields through accidental contamination by wind or insects. 
“Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell.” – Tom Wiley, North Dakota farmer